On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 09:24:21PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 2:44 AM > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 01:58:25AM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > Currently PCI device discovery details for the transitional device are > > > documented in two different sections. > > > > > > For example, PCI device and vendor ID registers are documented in > > > 'Device Requirements: PCI Device Discovery' section, while PCI > > > revision id is documented in 'Legacy Interfaces: A Note on PCI Device > > > Discovery' section. > > > > > > Transitional devices requirements should be documented in "legacy > > > interfaces" section as clearly mentioned in 'Legacy Interface: A Note > > > on Feature Bits'. > > > > I already commented on this, I disagree. > > Modern drivers must be able > > to completely ignore legacy interface sections, but they do bind to > > transitional > > device IDs. > > This change breaks this assumption. > > > Legacy interface section holds the detail about transitional devices. > We do not have, > "Legacy only" section. > > It doesn't make sense to partial information in legacy and partial in other > place. > Modern drivers are not mentioned in the spec terminology section. > > Can you please explain, how can modern driver ignore the text " Transitional > devices MUST have a PCI Revision ID of 0." written in legacy interface > section?
Modern drivers ignore revision ID. It is 0 to accomodate legacy drivers. -- MST --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
