From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LKaXJ-0005q0-Fe
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:41:37 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LKaXI-0005pS-MB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:41:37 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37091 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LKaXI-0005pB-1k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:41:36 -0500
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:39801)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <markmc@redhat.com>) id 1LKaXH-0000XJ-Hx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:41:35 -0500
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26])
	by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n07FfYOR016910
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:41:34 -0500
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] mark nic as trusted
From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090107151912.GF3267@redhat.com>
References: <20090107142626.GE3267@redhat.com>
	<1231340671.5050.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20090107151912.GF3267@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:41:32 +0000
Message-Id: <1231342892.5050.70.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 17:19 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:

> > > +    if (nd->secure_cookie[0])
> > > +        pci_add_capability(&n->vdev.pci_dev, 0x0f, 0xf0, nd->secure_cookie, 14);
> > 
> > How was the Capability ID 0x0f chosen? It it unallocated by the PCI SIG
> > allocated it or ...? I see it's not defined in the kernel sources:
> > 
> > #define  PCI_CAP_ID_AGP3        0x0E    /* AGP Target PCI-PCI bridge */
> > #define  PCI_CAP_ID_EXP         0x10    /* PCI Express */
> > 
> It is "secure device capability", so I used it based on the name.

Ah, I see this in pciutils now:

  #define  PCI_CAP_ID_SECURE      0x0F    /* Secure device (?) */

Where is the capability format published? I can't seem to find any
specification for it ...

Cheers,
Mark.