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

[Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>]

> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2023 4:09 PM

> > > It's not conformant to that statement then :( It's a SHOULD which
> > > means if you know exactly what you are doing, there could be exceptions.
> > > In this case it's a SHOULD because it was added after 1.0 and we did
> > > not find a way to negotiate this requirement since it's the feature negotiation
> itself.
> >
> > True. May be in future such device can update the revision id.
> 
> You can already change it but that doesn't imply anything at all, in 1.0 revisions
> are vendor specific.

I was suggesting that when such a fundamental change is done which cannot be communicated via features bit or before the reset,
a new revision and attaching more advance/different behavior.
This way driver knows what difference to expect for new revision.