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.
