On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:25:29 +0000 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:30:26 -0700 > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Btw your mailer does something odd with the "In-Reply-To:" field, I > > need to fix it up manually to include your address. > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:28 PM Chris Browy <cbrowy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Please address and clarify 2 queries below... > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2021, at 2:14 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:31 AM Jonathan Cameron > > > > <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:45:49 -0700 > > > >> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hey Jonathan, happy to see this, some comments below... > > > >> > > > >> Hi Dan, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for taking a look! > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:08 AM Jonathan Cameron > > > >>> <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Introduced in an ECN to the PCI 5.0, DOE provides a config space > > > >>>> based mailbox with standard protocol discovery. Each mailbox > > > >>>> is accessed through a DOE PCIE Extended Capability. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> A device may have 1 or more DOE mailboxes, each of which is allowed > > > >>>> to support any number of protocols (some DOE protocols > > > >>>> specifications apply additional restrictions). A given protocol > > > >>>> may be supported on more than one DOE mailbox on a given function. > > > >>> > > > >>> Are all those protocol instances shared? > > > >>> I'm trying to mental model > > > >>> whether, for example, an auxiliary driver instance could be loaded per > > > >>> DOE mailbox, or if there would need to be coordination of a given > > > >>> protocol no matter how many DOE mailboxes on that device implemented > > > >>> that protocol. > > > >> > > > >> Just to check I've understood corectly, you mean multiple instances of same > > > >> protocol across different DOE mailboxes on a given device? > > > >> > > > > > > > > Right. > > > > > > Could you confirm this case for clarity? A CXL device may have multiple VF/PF. > > > For example, PF=0 could have one or more DOE instances for CDAT protocol. > > > The driver will scan PF=0 for all DOE instances and finding one or more of CDAT > > > protocol will combine/manage them. I had not considered multiple CDAT tables > > > for single PF. For CXL devices with multiple PF’s the same process would be > > > carried out on PF=1-N. > > > > This patch has nothing to do with CXL. This is a general discussion of > > how a PCIE device implements a DOE mailbox or set of mailboxes. The > > DOE definition is PF-only afaics from the DOE specification. > > > > The CXL specification only says that a device can implement a CDAT per > > DOE capability instance, so the CXL spec does not limit the number of > > DOE instances to 1, but I can't think of a practical reason to support > > more than one. > > > > [..] > > > >>> https://cfp.osfc.io/media/osfc2020/submissions/ECQ88N/resources/An_open_source_SPDM_implementation_for_secure_devi_kmIgAQe.pdf > > > >> > > > >> Nice! Looking at CMA / IDE emulation was on my todo list and that looks like > > > >> it might make that job a lot easier. > > > > > > Would it be useful to integrate the openspdm’s SpdmResponderEmu.c onto the QEMU’s CXL Type3 Device’s > > > DOE backend for CMA/IDE testing? Doesn’t look hard to do. > > > > Yes, I do think it would be useful. > > Agreed. Very useful indeed. > > Jonathan > Hi Chris, Just wondering if this qemu/openspdm integration was something your team have had time to look at? I'd like to ideally get a second DOE usecase implemented on the Linux side to prove out the implementation. If it's fallen off your near term todo list I might see if I can hack something together in the meantime. Thanks, Jonathan
