[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH 00/11] Introduce transitional mmr pci device
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]