Re: [PATCH v4 07/27] vfio/pci: Detect CXL devices and load vfio-cxl on demand

[Gregory Price]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 07:16:59PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * A CXL Type-2 device advertises both CXL.cache and CXL.mem in its CXL DVSEC.
> > + * pcie_is_cxl() is also true for Type-1 (cache only) and Type-3 (mem only)
> > + * devices, which the vfio-cxl provider does not handle, so confirm the Type-2
> > + * identity before engaging it.
> 
> We don't expect to handle type 3 class code compliant devices, but what about
> the things referred to sometimes as CXL Type 3+?

Dan has previously (and I think would continue) to just call that
an accelerator - because it is.

I think the Type 1/2/3 nomenclature is stale and needs to go away,
it's outlived its usefulness.

To your point below, a compressed ram device is really an accelerator
with CXL.io and CXL.mem.  All the spec says (used to say?) about
"Type 2" is that it *may* support CXL.cache - it doesn't require it.

> It is also plausible we'd pass a full compressed RAM device through to the
> guest without paravirtualizing like we currently plan to do for class
> code Type 3 devices (for DCD, sharing etc). +CC Gregory to point out where
> I am wrong on this ;)
> 

Plausible, possible, feasible - yes.

Sane?  More sane than using it as a normal memory device on the host
assuming RAS signals from the device can't overwhelm the host (unknown).

> More generally, why are we controlling usecases?  A class code compliant type 3
> device 'could' be passed through I think if someone wanted to do that.
> I'd not encourage it but why is it a linux policy to not support it?
> 

The only scenario I can think of that you'd want to pass a simple
expander all the way through to the guest would be RAS signals - which
I think still require host plumbing anyway to avoid passing said signals
to the wrong guest depending on how you've chopped up the region.

Basically if you need DPA/HPA data from the device to be interpreted by
the kernel, the guest needs a translation mechanism.

In practice I can see passing a virtualized, locked auto-decoder through
to the guest with the same HPA/DPA values as the real device so the
signals can be delivered quickly with limited host interposition.

You would probably need on-device vitualization support to do "proper"
passthrough so the device can route signals to the guest directly.

Anyway, you could pass it through, sure, why not.

We shouldn't limit it, if only because we're not clairvoyant about
what will be useful tomorrow.

~Gregory