On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:39 AM Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 08:17:23 -0700 > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 6:41 AM Jonathan Cameron > > <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This ID is used in DOE headers to identify protocols that are defined > > > within the PCI Express Base Specification. > > > > > > Specified in Table 7-x2 of the Data Object Exchange ECN (approved 12 March > > > 2020) available from https://members.pcisig.com/wg/PCI-SIG/document/14143 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/linux/pci_ids.h | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pci_ids.h b/include/linux/pci_ids.h > > > index 4c3fa5293d76..dcc8b4b14198 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/pci_ids.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/pci_ids.h > > > @@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ > > > #define PCI_CLASS_OTHERS 0xff > > > > > > /* Vendors and devices. Sort key: vendor first, device next. */ > > > +#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_PCI_SIG 0x0001 > > > > Should this not be: > > > > PCI_DOE_VENDOR_ID_PCI_SIG? > > > > ...because I don't think this value will ever show up at the typical > > config-offset 0 vendor-id, will it? > > Good question. > > Whilst I agree it is unlikely to turn up as a conventional vendor-id > (though I've not found any text ruling it out) it already turns up > in locations other than DOE. > > Many of them aren't software visible, but potentially places > like SPDM are in which you would have a registry ID of 0x3 (PCI-SIG) > followed by the PCI vendor ID (this one). Those are used in SPDM > vendor defined requests / responses. > > That SPDM feature is then used in IDE establishment. > The IDE ECN (via pcisig.com) has the following: > "The VendorID field of the VENDOR_DEFINED_REQUEST/ > VENDOR_DEFINED_RESPONSE must contain the value 0001h, which is assigned to > the PCI-SIG." > > Which to my reading, isn't quite the same as saying it's a vendor ID, > but nearly so. > > Now, I argued the *_DVSEC_* naming in the CXL one based on the spec saying > that was all it could be used for but I may well have been wrong longer > term. > > I'm fine with renaming it to the PCI_DOE_* version then dropping the DOE > when it gets used for something else though if that works for people. > > At least this time naming isn't made awkward by legalese. For fun I did a lookup for vendor-id 1 and it came back "Fry's Electronics Counterfeit Flash Drive" https://pcilookup.com/?ven=0001&dev=&action=submit The potential for it to be used in other places outside of DOE makes me think the way you have it here is fine. Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
