On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 18:17 +0100, Roedel, Joerg wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 09:44:30AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > bit 0 (PCI_PASID_ENABLE) is reserved in the CAP register... > > Is it? Which spec are you using? In my version it is not reserved but > states if it is supported to set the enable-bit. Latest I can find is the March 31, 2011 PASID ECN, which just lists that bit as reserved. > > Which means we need to check CTRL, not CAP to see if it was previously > > enabled... or maybe this check is entirely wrong and we're was trying to > > see if enable is supported. > > I will check how this looks in my test environment. > > > And nobody exposes PCI_PASID_ENABLE because it doesn't exist as a > > capability. > > > > It's easy to see this if the bit definitions are named appropriately and > > specified per register instead of being lumped together as "close > > enough". Thanks, > > I don't object against your renames as long as it doesn't cause > merge-conflicts with what I plan to send upstream. I can drop it if need be, was just trying to do some cleanup on the consistency of pci_reg.h before adding a bunch more defines to help bounds checking and parsing for vfio-pci. Unless my spec is outdated, it seems like there's more than an aesthetic change here though, so resolving the conflicts with your latest work might be warranted. Thanks, Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
