Re: [PATCH v2] content: Reserve ID 52 for QPSFI device

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 03:35:51PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> > From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> > Sent: 22 October 2026 08:35 PM
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 22 2026, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Let's define some standard way for the vendors to declare that this
> > > device is "Qualcomm", "NXP" or "hobbyist which doesn't own PCI or USB id
> > > block".
> > 
> > Are we able to use the first <n> bytes of config space for that? I guess
> > that is the only way that can possibly work for any transport.
> > 
> > Then, maybe something like one or two bytes for a vendor id (including
> > one for "testing purposes" or so), and the rest to be used in a
> > vendor-specific way.
> > 
> device ids are independent of the transport.
> 
> but Peter already announced that:
> " Reserve a device ID for QPSFI devices (Qualcomm Platform Subsystem
> Firmware Interface). QPSFI devices expose functionality across SoC
> subsystems through a common Virtio-based protocol. There are no plans to
> standardize the devices."
> 
> So, I am unable to understand why should it be part of vendor agnostic virtio spec?
> Why a vendor specific implementation of device and driver is not sufficient?

I don't really think we should vendors burn up device IDs every
times they want something non standard. Reserving ID 52 as
"vendor specific" so vendors can go wild sounds good,
but a bit more needs to be done than just reserving:
document what is expected, e.g. no auto load based on ID
alone.


-- 
MST