From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60784) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAdcl-0008J0-1W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 11:11:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAdch-0000MN-Qh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 11:11:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33612) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAdch-0000K3-KF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 11:11:07 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D1D820262 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:11:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:11:01 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20171103170426-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20171102133115.19195-1-lprosek@redhat.com> <20171102163348-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <1509693637.31823.7.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio-pci: Don't force Subsystem Vendor ID = Vendor ID List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Ladi Prosek Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , Yan Vugenfirer , qemu-devel , Vadim Rozenfeld On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:23:07AM +0100, Ladi Prosek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Ladi Prosek > >> > > >> > I wonder whether it's a problem that legacy devices ignore > >> > the subsystem ID (that's part of spec). > >> > >> I don't understand this comment. I don't see anything in the spec > >> related to ignoring the subsystem ID. > > > > Well, the subsystem *device* id is defined to be the virtio device id, > > so it is certainly not ignored. The subsystem *vendor* id is not used > > as far I know (or ignored in the sense that it doesn't change driver > > behavior), allowing to set that makes sense to me. > > Yes, thanks, I'm assuming that Michael meant the subsystem device ID. > The PCI spec seems to be using "subsystem ID" for the name of this > field. Exactly. > I understand that this ID must not change in legacy devices. Interestingly the device ID is ignored except it must be within a specific range of values. > Interestingly, Windows appears to allow matching drivers only on the > full subsystem device ID + subsystem vendor ID 32-bit value, not on > only one of the two. > > PCI\VEN_v(4)&DEV_d(4)&SUBSYS_s(4)n(4)&REV_r(2) > > This might be a potential problem for a legacy driver that wants to > stay vendor-agnostic but I'm pretty sure there would be a reasonable > way of working around it. Actually, the device must use a designated > device ID (like 0x1000) in addition to the subsystem device ID so this > should be a non-issue altogether. The original virtio spec wasn't really workable for windows. It requires ignoring everything except the vendor ID, *range* of device IDs (specific ID is ignored) and subsystem ID. So in my humble opinion the right thing for people to do is simply to avoid legacy devices. Is something preventing that? > > Possibly not only for virtio devices, most pci devices have 1af4:1100 > > as subsystem id, other vendors might want set it too for consistency. > > > > cheers, > > Gerd