Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > > On 9/9/25 10:41, dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > >>> So PCI_EXP_DEVCAP_TEE means that there may be a DSM, > >> > >> This bit I am not sure about. A bit hard to believe that PF0 is always expected to support passing through to a CVM. Thanks, > > > > I am losing track of your specific feedback, or what changes or being > > I've reread the thread, I wrongly assumed "tee" is used to decide whether to show "connect" in sysfs or not. I guess I was a bit tired^woverwhelmed when I made that comment, my bad. > > > > suggested here is the summary of what the spec assumptions and what the > > core supports: > > > > Spec assumptions: > > - DEVCAP_TEE on a physical function is independent of IDE cap > > Right, I just want to make sure that PF0 that manages TEE VFs does not have to have the TEE bit itself. It does. Otherwise, how do you tell the difference between a device that that only supports Component Measurement and Authentication (CMA) in isolation vs a device that support CMA *and* TDISP requests? Now, the PCI/TSM core will still attach if that PF0 device has IDE, without DEVCAP_TEE, but that support is incidental.
