> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 4:39 AM
[..] > > This is even better. > > > Ideally we'll add a "MUST", but since we can't, > > Lets hear Michael's view, why MUST cannot be done. > > Based on our discussion here, I think MUST is possible and cleaner without > breaking any existing sw or device. > > 1.2 is out without this requirement. Making this a MUST at this point would > declare such previously conformant devices non-conformant. > So I'm afraid our hands are tied. > Technically yes, I agree it make non conformant. The device that offered HASH_REPORT without offering CVQ, is extremely rare/narrow case. I am not sure if anyone would have ever built such a thing just because such description was missing from the spec. So, I am inclined towards a practical part than purely technical. But I can live with SHOULD here if you want to stick to strict compliance here. > It might be a good idea to start building out a charter documenting all kind > of > compat hacks like this such that new devices are not tempted to do the wrong > thing. I am not sure how this will look exactly though. > We should write a line along with device requirements something like below. Even though CVQ is not mandatory for HASH_REPORT, it is strong advised the device to NOT report this feature when CTRL_VQ is not advertised. Once there is better section, more generic table etc can be created. Since you created the ballot already, I will supply the short patch to add above description later. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
