From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA7071FF0DF for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:55:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 49D222156F; Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:55:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2026 11:55:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-qemu-server-rs v2 3/9] pci: legacy: generate q35 chipset devices and hostpcie root ports To: Elias Huhsovitz , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20261015081041.743422-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20261015081041.743422-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793876128308 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.320 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: YX3LTPRZ74WJBX6KY3XMXRZK2XHXJLHV X-Message-ID-Hash: YX3LTPRZ74WJBX6KY3XMXRZK2XHXJLHV X-MailFrom: d.csapak@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 10/29/26 2:31 PM, Elias Huhsovitz wrote: > Comments inline [snip] > > nit: I understand that setting multifunction=on shouldnt cause any harm > here, but IMO it should still be encoded in RootPort. e.g. hmm what would that achieve? we don't have enough information to decide if it would need it, so the flag would always be `true`. not sure it makes sense to have a field that does not do anything > > pub struct RootPort { > pub addr: PciAddress, > /// The bus the root port forms. > pub id: Bus, > /// The number of the root port, also used as port and chassis number. > pub index: u8, > pub multifunction: bool, > } > >> /// The address a layout assigns to a device. >> #[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)] >> pub struct AddressAssignment { > > [snip]