On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:46:08 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > [..] > > FWIW, I pinged administration@xxxxxxxxxx and got the response that > > "1E98h is not a VID in our system, but 1E98 has already been reserved > > by CXL." > > > > I wish there were a clearer public statement of this reservation, but > > I interpret the response to mean that CXL is not a "Vendor", maybe due > > to some strict definition of "Vendor," but that PCI-SIG will not > > assign 0x1e98 to any other vendor. > > > > So IMO we should add "#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_CXL 0x1e98" so that if we > > ever *do* see such an assignment, we'll be more likely to flag it as > > an issue. > > Agree. Sorry for late entry on this discussion and I'll be careful what I say on the history. As you've guessed it was "entertaining" and for FWIW that text occurs in other consortium specs (some predate CXL). It's reserved with agreement from the PCI SIG for a strictly defined set of purposes that does not correspond to those allowed for a normal ID granted to a vendor member. As you say CXL isn't a vendor (don't ask how DMTF got a vendor ID - 0x1AB4). Hence the naming gymnastics and vague answers to avoid any chance of lawyers getting involved :( Jonathan
