[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH] pci: use revision id 1 or higher for non transitional devices
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:02:25PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: > > VIRTIO-34 > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > --- > > virtio-v1.0-wd01-part1-specification.txt | 12 ++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/virtio-v1.0-wd01-part1-specification.txt b/virtio-v1.0-wd01-part1-specification.txt > > index 6ab4ff8..b3f7c9e 100644 > > --- a/virtio-v1.0-wd01-part1-specification.txt > > +++ b/virtio-v1.0-wd01-part1-specification.txt > > @@ -802,10 +802,18 @@ supported by the device. The Subsystem Vendor ID should reflect > > the PCI Vendor ID of the environment (it's currently only used > > for informational purposes by the guest). > > > > +All Drivers must match devices with any Revision ID, this > > +is to allow devices to be versioned without breaking drivers. > > + > > 2.3.1.1.1 Legacy Interfaces: A Note on PCI Device Discovery > > ------------------------- > > -Transitional devices must also have a Revision ID of 0 to match > > -this specification. > > +Transitional devices must have a Revision ID of 0 to match > > +legacy drivers. > > + > > +Non-transitional devices must have a Revision ID of 1 or higher. > > + > > +Both transitional and non-transitional drivers must match > > +any Revision ID value. > > Hmm, so a non-transitional driver should match revision ID 0? Sure, > it'll fail gracefully when it doesn't find the capability, but it's a > bit weird. Drivers should just ignore revision. If you put it like this it is not weird anymore, right? > Cheers, > Rusty. -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]