[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] transport-pci: Introduce group legacy group member config region access
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 05:35:04PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 1:26 PM > > > > > Also these devices will use non-transitional ID but they in fact do > > > > have a legacy interface so using this definition they are > > > > transitional devices. Maybe we need to add when we describe the > > > > device ID text like "non transitional devices and transitional devices utilizing > > commands XYZ" ...? > > > > > > Transitional device has specific meaning, I am not sure we should muddy it. > > > > > > > > To simplify transition from these earlier draft interfaces, a device MAY > > implement: > > > > \begin{description} > > \item[Transitional Device] > > a device supporting both drivers conforming to this > > specification, and allowing legacy drivers. > > \end{description} > > > > > > I agree it can be read this way. The issue is a lot of text in the spec just assumes > > that "has legacy interface == transitional device". > > > > > > > > For example: > > When using the legacy interface the driver MAY access the device-specific > > configuration region using any width accesses, and a transitional device MUST > > present driver with the same results as when accessed using the ``natural'' > > access method (i.e. > > 32-bit accesses for 32-bit fields, etc). > > > > > > If we break the assumption we need to audit the spec for this > > assumption and again, I really would rather not. > > We are not breaking the assumption. Above listed requirement is already captured in the legacy interface conformance section. > So I am not sure what extra to write here. > Hmm not sure what's unclear. I can try to explain the issue again. These devices have a legacy interface yes? So they should be transitional to avoid breaking assumption. But they are not *exactly* in that they don't have a transitional device ID. At least the device id section needs extra text then to explain this? Or do you just want to make them have transitional ID? -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]