Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device [V3]

[James Bulpin <James.Bulpin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 11:28 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 11:12 +0000, James Bulpin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > - the Citrix [vendor id|device id] pair has to be different from the
> > > xenproject one (0x5853|0x0001). I am sure we can arrange the
> > > xenproject device id space so that Windows PV drivers vendors don't
> have
> > > to acquire their own PCI vendor ids.
> >
> > (removing qemu-devel)
> >
> > I agree - this makes sense. There are already a few known uses of other
> > device IDs such as:
> >
> >   0002 - used by Citrix for a version of Windows PV drivers [1]
> 
> In the wild I presume?

Yes.

> >   c110 - Virtualized HID [2]
> >   c147 - Virtualized Graphics Device [2]
> >
> > I suggest we have a file somewhere in the Xen tree to record
> > reservations, e.g. docs/misc/pci-device-reservations.txt - changes to
> > this would then be managed via the usual patch submission process
> > and therefore be transparent and subject to community review.
> 
> This sounds like a good idea to me.
> 
> Apart from grandfathering in 0002 lets keep the per-vendor IDs in the
> 0xc000-0xfffe range to start with, reducing the possibility of clashes
> with community IDs assigned from the bottom up.

Agreed.

> Is someone going to send an initial patch adding the currently know IDs?

I'll do so later today.

> >  For
> > example we could allocate to a Xen vendor such as Citrix XenClient a
> > range of device IDs like c100-c1ff and let it use the range as it
> > desires.
> 
> Well, they'd presumably have to submit the patch themselves, but yes.

Yes, that's what I meant - poor wording on my part.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel