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
