RE: Subsystem Vendor ID assignment

[Dave New <NewD@esi.com>]

You may have seen the note from AMCC by now,
but the short of it is that I was a bit
confused.  The thing that AMCC was doing for
a while was tracking Device ID's for their
older chips that did not support Sub-Vendor
and Sub-Device ID's, but did support non-
default Device (and Vendor) ID's via a
powerup EEPROM attached to the device.

We prototyped with an AMCC5933Q that had
such a deal, and substituted our Vendor
and Device ID for AMCC's 5933 default
ID's that the device uses if it doesn't
find an attached configuration EEPROM.

Additionally, for those that just wanted
an unique Device ID, but wanted to
'piggyback' on AMCC's Vendor ID, for
a while AMCC was offering a registration
service for Device ID's only.  I don't
believe you got a preference for ID
(after all, beggers can't be choosers 8-).

I've been told that this has discontinued
for newer AMCC devices that support
Sub-Vendor and Sub-Device ID's.

My apologies, if I confused anyone on
the list.  But, the fact still remains
that if you find a Vendor willing to
'lend you' their Vendor ID, and
administrate a bank of Device ID's,
and if the chip in question supports
this kind of customization, then it
can be done without involving the SIG.
As far as I know, they have never been
involved in handing out Device ID's,
instead leaving that to the Vendors
to administrate as they saw fit.

Cheers,

-- DaveN

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Brooks Lame [SMTP:Brooks_Lame@mcg.mot.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, February 25, 1999 1:52 PM
> To:	Mailing List Recipients
> Subject:	RE: Subsystem Vendor ID assignment
> 
> Well, it didn't answer the question, but it brings up an interesting
> "whoa".
> Oh, BTW, yes, you've got to be a SIG member to get an ID (pretty slick,
> huh?).
> 
> > In general, the company that is assigned the Vendor ID
> > that you wish to use in concert with your Subsystem
> > Vendor ID is responsible for administrating Subsytem
> > IDs.  
> 
> Whoa!  That's the first I heard of this.  How many other companies besides
> AMCC are tracking unique implementations with their silicon?  I always
> thought the susbsystem vendor was responsible because if they vary from
> the
> silicon vendor's reference design, then they own the implementation, not
> the
> silicon vendor.  More over, if the subsystem ID is unique, then there
> would
> be no point in having a subsystem vendor ID.
> 
> > So, if you are using something like a chip that
> > has a fixed Vendor ID and a variable Subsystem ID
> > to implement a PCI agent, you should contact the chip
> > manufacturer's Subsystem ID administrative function.
> > For example, I'm aware that AMCC binds a postcard
> > in their data books, so that you can request registration
> > of a Subsystem ID from them for use with their parts.
> 
> That's nice, but do they actually track those numbers or is it a marketing
> thing.  What if two companies what the same cool subsystem ID like C0DEh?
> --
> Brooks
> 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > -- DaveN
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	Joe Derham [SMTP:joed@voicenet.com]
> > > Sent:	Thursday, February 25, 1999 8:50 AM
> > > To:	Mailing List Recipients
> > > Subject:	Subsystem Vendor ID assignment
> > > 
> > > Hi Everyone,
> > > 
> > > 	Do you have to be a member of the SIG before being assigned a
> > > Subsystem Vendor ID?  I know you have to be to get a Vendor 
> > ID assigned.  
> > > 
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Joe Derham
> >