Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] transport-pci: Introduce legacy registers access using AQ

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 03:16:02PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:04 AM
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 02:53:28PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:44 AM
> > > > > Since this ABI reflects what we agree on, I would want to raise
> > > > > for vote in coming days to be part of 1.3 in few days as we have
> > > > > more than 3
> > > > weeks to sort out non-ABI language part.
> > > >
> > > > I think there's a bunch of work to tighten wording in v4, don't
> > > > believe it is ready for vote yet.
> > > 3rd patch has the conformance section.
> > > Rest of the legacy interface semantics are just same as today.
> > > We are not fixing the legacy interface itself, so not sure what to tighten
> > specifically.
> > 
> > I'll do a proper review after the forum. Generally lots of small things. Went
> > looking just to give you a couple of
> > examples:
> > 	  too many mentions of VFs and PFs.
> > 	  text should talk about owner and member. Minimise
> > 	  mention of VFs to make it easier to extend to
> > 	  different group types.
> > 
> True but most additions are in PCI transport chapter.
> But will change to member and owner.
> 
> > another example:
> > 	+The PCI VF device SHOULD NOT expose PCI BAR 0 when it prefers to
> > support
> > 
> > VFs don't expose BARs at all. PF exposes VF BARs in SRIOV capability.
> > 
> Yes, it is exposed by PF, the wording of "PCI VF device exposing" is not right.
> I will reword it.

Note that this will then apply to all VFs of this PF, even those without
legacy support. Still not sure why it's SHOULD not a MUST.
So that driver actually checks, but it's ok to fail if the rule
is not followed maybe? In that case add a driver normative statement
too.

-- 
MST