Re: [PATCH 0/3] thunderbolt: Update XDomain vendor properties dynamically

[Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 09:06:30AM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 8/6/2025 3:51 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 11:46:04AM +0530, Rangoju, Raju wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 7/28/2025 12:17 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 11:20:23PM +0530, Raju Rangoju wrote:
> > > > > This patch series aims to update vendor properties for XDomain
> > > > > dynamically for vendors like AMD, Intel and ASMedia.
> > > > 
> > > > The XDomain properties pretty much describe "software" not the underlying
> > > > hardware so I don't understand why this is needed? We could have some USB
> > > > IF registered Linux specific ID there but I don't see why this matters at
> > > > all.
> > > 
> > > Currently, it is showing up as "Intel" on AMD host controllers during
> > > inter-domain connection. I suppose an alternative is to just call it "Linux"
> > > or "Linux Connection Manager" to ensure we accurately represent the
> > > connections across different systems.
> > > 
> > > I appreciate your guidance on this and suggestions you might have.
> > 
> > Yeah, something like that (I prefer "Linux"). The "ID" still is 0x8086
> > though but I don't think that matters. AFAIK we have other "donated" IDs in
> > use in Linux. Let me check on our side if that's okay.
> 
> Having looked through this discussion I personally like "Linux" for this
> string too.
> 
> As for the vendor ID doesn't the LF have an ID assigned already of 0x1d6b?
> Would it make sense to use that?

AFAIK that's PCI ID, right? It should be USB IF assigned ID and LF is not
here at least:

  https://www.usb.org/members

If it really matters we can sure register one.

> I was also thinking about the device ID, should we consider encoding the
> VERSION, PATCHLEVEL, and SUBLEVEL into the ID?  The reason I'm thinking
> about that is let's say there is some bug found in the CM on Linux and
> another implementation decides to work around it.  We get wind of it and fix
> the bug but in Linux but now what about the other end?  If we give them a
> hint on the version by putting it in the device ID they can potentially key
> off that to decide to tear out the workaround.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. Then we expose also all the known
vulnerabilities.