On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 09:11:53AM +0200, Yan Vugenfirer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 8:54 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 06:37:47PM +0000, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > > > The QEMU-emulated AMD IOMMU PCI device is implemented based on the AMD > > I/O > > > Virtualization Technology (IOMMU) Specification [1]. The PCI id for this > > > device is platform-specific. > > > > > > Currently, the QEMU-emulated AMD IOMMU device is using AMD vendor id and > > > undefined device id. > > > > undefined? > > > > > Therefore, change the vendor id to Red Hat and request a new > > QEMU-specific > > > device id. > > > > Won't the drivers fail to load then? > > > > Windows will not identify the device (it is a dummy device, without driver) > and SVVP certifications will fail as a result. > I suggest using ID that is already present in Windows machine.inf: > VEN_1002&DEV_5A23
Ven: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] Dev: RD890S/RD990 I/O Memory Management Unit (IOMMU) > VEN_1022&DEV_1419 Vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Dev: Family 15h (Models 10h-1fh) I/O Memory Management Unit Is our implementation semantically a match for the functionality in either of those real hardware devices ? We shouldn't use an existing hardware dev ID unless we intend to emulate its functionality as a precise match. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
