From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756154Ab1KHRcF (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 12:32:05 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:18025 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751247Ab1KHRcD (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 12:32:03 -0500 Message-ID: <1320773518.19116.30.camel@bling.home> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: More PRI/PASID cleanup From: Alex Williamson To: "Roedel, Joerg" Cc: "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org" , "bhelgaas@google.com" Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:31:58 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20111108171725.GE5182@amd.com> References: <20111103034359.10286.19062.stgit@bling.home> <20111108162826.GD5182@amd.com> <1320770670.19116.23.camel@bling.home> <20111108171725.GE5182@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 18:17 +0100, Roedel, Joerg wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 09:44:30AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > bit 0 (PCI_PASID_ENABLE) is reserved in the CAP register... > > Is it? Which spec are you using? In my version it is not reserved but > states if it is supported to set the enable-bit. Latest I can find is the March 31, 2011 PASID ECN, which just lists that bit as reserved. > > Which means we need to check CTRL, not CAP to see if it was previously > > enabled... or maybe this check is entirely wrong and we're was trying to > > see if enable is supported. > > I will check how this looks in my test environment. > > > And nobody exposes PCI_PASID_ENABLE because it doesn't exist as a > > capability. > > > > It's easy to see this if the bit definitions are named appropriately and > > specified per register instead of being lumped together as "close > > enough". Thanks, > > I don't object against your renames as long as it doesn't cause > merge-conflicts with what I plan to send upstream. I can drop it if need be, was just trying to do some cleanup on the consistency of pci_reg.h before adding a bunch more defines to help bounds checking and parsing for vfio-pci. Unless my spec is outdated, it seems like there's more than an aesthetic change here though, so resolving the conflicts with your latest work might be warranted. Thanks, Alex