On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:14:16AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org <virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org> On
> > Behalf Of Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 1:46 PM
>
> > These devices have a legacy interface yes?
> Yes. partially.
>
> > So they should be transitional to avoid breaking assumption.
> >
> >
> > But they are not *exactly*
> > in that they don't have a transitional device ID.
> >
> Right. They do not have transitional device ID.
I was trying to think whether we need a conformance statement
stating so. I guess this is up to the device?
Then let's make it clear. Something like:
For the SR-IOV group type,
the owner device supporting legacy configuration access commands
[assuming this is the term - do we define it somewhere? or just
list the commands]
MAY follow the rules for the PCI Device ID, Revision ID
and Subsystem Device ID for the non-transitional devices
documented in
{Virtio Transport Options / Virtio Over PCI Bus / PCI Device Discovery}
or do you want to make it a SHOULD?
> > At least the device id section needs extra text then to explain this?
> >
> We don't modify any of the transitional device attributes.
> In respective conformance section, it is described what requirements of
> legacy interface to follow.
> > Or do you just want to make them have transitional ID?
> Don't want to do that.
> Non transitional device id with the extension is just fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
