On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:55:39AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 15:08:12 +0300
> Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 25/10/2023 22:13, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 17:35:51 +0300
> > > Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 24/10/2023 22:57, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 16:42:17 +0300
> > >>> Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > >>>> + if (copy_to_user(buf + copy_offset, &val32, copy_count))
> > >>>> + return -EFAULT;
> > >>>> + }
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> + if (range_intersect_range(pos, count, PCI_SUBSYSTEM_ID, sizeof(val16),
> > >>>> + ©_offset, ©_count, NULL)) {
> > >>>> + /*
> > >>>> + * Transitional devices use the PCI subsystem device id as
> > >>>> + * virtio device id, same as legacy driver always did.
> > >>> Where did we require the subsystem vendor ID to be 0x1af4? This
> > >>> subsystem device ID really only makes since given that subsystem
> > >>> vendor ID, right? Otherwise I don't see that non-transitional devices,
> > >>> such as the VF, have a hard requirement per the spec for the subsystem
> > >>> vendor ID.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do we want to make this only probe the correct subsystem vendor ID or do
> > >>> we want to emulate the subsystem vendor ID as well? I don't see this is
> > >>> correct without one of those options.
> > >> Looking in the 1.x spec we can see the below.
> > >>
> > >> Legacy Interfaces: A Note on PCI Device Discovery
> > >>
> > >> "Transitional devices MUST have the PCI Subsystem
> > >> Device ID matching the Virtio Device ID, as indicated in section 5 ...
> > >> This is to match legacy drivers."
> > >>
> > >> However, there is no need to enforce Subsystem Vendor ID.
> > >>
> > >> This is what we followed here.
> > >>
> > >> Makes sense ?
> > > So do I understand correctly that virtio dictates the subsystem device
> > > ID for all subsystem vendor IDs that implement a legacy virtio
> > > interface? Ok, but this device didn't actually implement a legacy
> > > virtio interface. The device itself is not tranistional, we're imposing
> > > an emulated transitional interface onto it. So did the subsystem vendor
> > > agree to have their subsystem device ID managed by the virtio committee
> > > or might we create conflicts? I imagine we know we don't have a
> > > conflict if we also virtualize the subsystem vendor ID.
> > >
> > The non transitional net device in the virtio spec defined as the below
> > tuple.
> > T_A: VID=0x1AF4, DID=0x1040, Subsys_VID=FOO, Subsys_DID=0x40.
> >
> > And transitional net device in the virtio spec for a vendor FOO is
> > defined as:
> > T_B: VID=0x1AF4,DID=0x1000,Subsys_VID=FOO, subsys_DID=0x1
> >
> > This driver is converting T_A to T_B, which both are defined by the
> > virtio spec.
> > Hence, it does not conflict for the subsystem vendor, it is fine.
>
> Surprising to me that the virtio spec dictates subsystem device ID in
> all cases.
Modern virtio spec doesn't. Legacy spec did.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
