From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47712) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W2eWF-0000AH-WF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:13:25 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W2eW9-0003Gu-TI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:13:19 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34341) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W2eW9-0003GT-Lg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:13:13 -0500 Message-ID: <1389607987.9142.48.camel@nilsson.home.kraxel.org> From: Gerd Hoffmann Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:13:07 +0100 In-Reply-To: <52CD78C4.8070403@redhat.com> References: <1388934290-27700-1-git-send-email-mmishael@redhat.com> <52CC1310.7070406@redhat.com> <52CD78C4.8070403@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Docs: Introduce multiport serial support in qemupciserial.inf List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Yan Vugenfirer , qemu-devel list , Ronen Hod , Anthony Liguori , Dmitry Fleytman , Miki Mishael On Mi, 2014-01-08 at 17:11 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 08/01/2014 16:07, Yan Vugenfirer ha scritto: > >>> > >>> +%QEMU-PCI_SERIAL_1_PORT%=ComPort_inst1, > >>> PCI\VEN_1B36&DEV_0002&SUBSYS_11001AF4&REV_01 > >>> +%QEMU-PCI_SERIAL_2_PORT%=ComPort_inst2, > >>> PCI\VEN_1B36&DEV_0003&SUBSYS_11001AF4&REV_01 > >>> +%QEMU-PCI_SERIAL_4_PORT%=ComPort_inst4, > >>> PCI\VEN_1B36&DEV_0004&SUBSYS_11001AF4&REV_01 > >> > >> I think checking the subsystem is not necessary (and I think downstreams > >> could legitimately change it). Can you check CC and REV but not SUBSYS? > > > > PNP ID can be reduced to vendor and device ID only, for example: > > PCI\VEN_1B36&DEV_0002 . But in this case we cannot check revision. > > Gerd, Michael, what do you think is better? Not check revision, or > enforcing subsystem? No need to check the revision. There is only one, I doubt this will ever change, and should we do a rev2 virtual hardware it is supposed to be backward-compatible to rev1 (otherwise we should hand out a new pci id to the device). [ drivers which depend on few features of the hypothetical rev2 hardware and don't work with rev1 would need a revision check ] cheers, Gerd