Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH 00/11] Introduce transitional mmr pci device

[Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 5:35âPM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 06:00:13PM -0400, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 4/3/2023 5:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:25:02PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:02 PM
> > > >

[...]

> >
> > tvq specific for legacy register access make sense.
> > Some generic tvq is abstract and dont see any relation here.
> >
> > So better to name it as legacy_reg_transport_vq (lrt_vq).
>
> Again this assumes tvq will be rewritten on top of AQ.
> I guess legacy can then become a new type of AQ command?
>
> And maybe you want a memory mapped register for AQ commands? I know
> Jason really wanted that.
>

That's exactly why we decouple the commands from a specific transport
(queue or register). It allows sufficient flexibility.

Thanks