lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/8] pci: Add CircuitCo VENDOR ID and MinnowBoard DEVICE ID
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:30 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 12:37 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
>>
>> But Peter's comment makes more sense to me now. The spec refers to
>> that config register as "Subsystem ID," not "Subsystem Device ID," but
>> I was confused because most existing usage treats it as a device ID.
>> For example, the field in struct pci_device_id is named "subdevice,"
>> and all the existing #defines in pci_ids.h are of the form
>> PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_*.
>>
>> Device IDs are pretty specific identifiers, so I was thinking that a
>> "sub-device ID" would be even more specific. Then it would make no
>> sense to have a "sub-device ID" that was as generic as "MINNOWBOARD."
>> But the register is actually *not* a "sub-device ID," and I can see
>> that using the same Subsystem ID for all the devices on a board might
>> make sense.
>>
>
> Subsystem IDs is basically a board ID in the traditional PC view, but
> they didn't call it that because it would have been confusing in other,
> nontraditional configurations.
>
> Microsoft has a "best practices" document, which may end up becoming
> basis for a future PCI-SIG document clarifying the standard:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463287.aspx

Interesting, thanks for the link. If I read that correctly, the
MinnowBoard is basically a motherboard, and any board layout change or
component value change will require a new Subsystem ID, which will in
turn require a pch_gbe update. That doesn't sound optimal, but maybe
people don't actually interpret it that strictly.

Bjorn


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-27 00:21    [W:0.148 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site