On Wed, Feb 22 2023, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 10:01:24AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 21 2023, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 05:59:52PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: >> >> >> >> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:52 PM >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 05:50:09PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: >> >> > > Hence, it should be mentioned as read-only fields, so when the driver >> >> > > writes >> >> > something to read-only fields, it can be considered as undefined >> >> > behavior on >> >> > such fields. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > In the description not in the normative statements. normative sections >> >> > just tell >> >> > driver what it must and must not do, in the standard RFC terms. >> >> > >> >> Got it. >> >> I will shift them as read-only in the description section. >> >> And normative in the device and driver section. >> >> Device section: >> >> Any writes to config space fields is ignored by the device, because these >> >> are read-only fields for the driver. >> > >> > writes is plural so "are ignored" >> > >> > but more importantly use rfc terms in normative sections. >> >> I don't think you need to talk about "read-only" in the normative >> sections (that belongs to the descriptive sections.) I'd use >> >> "The device MUST ignore any writes to config space fields by the >> driver." > > Hmm. Is this something we previously required for read only fields? So, better make it SHOULD? (The only alternative to ignoring I see is breaking the device, and I think ignoring is preferable.) > > >> > >> >> >> >> Driver section: >> >> Driver must not write to read-only fields. >> >> "The driver MUST NOT write to any config space field." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
