On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 18:54 +0100, Roedel, Joerg wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 10:31:58AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > 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. > > Okay, my one is older and there it is stated as I implemented it. I will > check with reality first before changing the code... My guess is that someone asked why a device would ever expose this table if it didn't support enable as a capability. So, I wouldn't be surprised if your hardware sets it, but it's probably just as safe to assume enable is supported if the PASID table exists. Thanks, Alex > > 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 Unless my spec is outdated, 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. > > Fine with me. The best is probably when I carry this change forward > (when Jesse is ok with that) and put my changes on-top of that. > > Thanks, > > Joerg > -- 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
