> On Sep 15, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > When we quirk a device with PCI_DEV_FLAGS_VPD_REF_F0 we're expecting > to find a device where all the functions are identical. If we don't > find that, we don't make VPD accessible through pci_vpd_ops. That > means that if we quirk devices we shouldn't, we filter them out by > hiding VPD entirely rather than allowing default access. Instead, we > can flip this around to only quirk devices that match a slightly more > rigorous test in the quirk, allowing regular access for anything else. > > Tests for the multifunction flag are removed since a) function 0 and > the function under test are clearly a multifunction device if we're > scanning a non-zero function in the same slot and b) at this point the > flag is only set in the device under test if the multifunction bit is > set in the PCI HEADER, which is a point of interpretation for the PCI > spec. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > This is potentially another stable candiate since we're continuing to > iterate on 932c435caba8, but since we don't actually know of a device > where VPD is blocked (we don't think my Skylake example actually > supports VPD), I'm not including it. I would support it if requested > though. This looks good to me. I can't really test the cases it addresses, but it seems reasonable. Acked-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@xxxxxxxxx> -- Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
