Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH 09/11] transport-pci: Describe PCI MMR dev config registers

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 01:14:15PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > >>>> The proposed solution in this series enables it and avoid per field sw
> > >>> interpretation and mediation in parsing values etc.

... except for reset, notifications, and maybe more down the road.


> > >>> I don't think it's possible. See the discussion about ORDER_PLATFORM and
> > >>> ACCESS_PLATFORM in previous threads.
> > >>>
> > >> I have read the previous thread.
> > >> Hypervisor will be limiting to those platforms where ORDER_PLATFORM is not needed.
> > >
> > > So you introduce a bunch of new facilities that only work on some
> > > specific archs. This breaks the architecture independence of virtio
> > > since 1.0.
> > The defined spec for PCI device does not work today for transitional
> > device for virtualization. Only works in limited PF case.
> > Hence this update.
> 
> I fully understand the motivation. I just want to say
> 
> 1) compare to the MMIO ar BAR0, this proposal doesn't provide much advantages
> 2) mediate on top of modern devices allows us to not worry about the
> device design which is hard for legacy

I begin to think so, too. When I proposed this it looked like just a
single capability will be enough, without a lot of mess.  But it seems
that addressing this fully is getting more and more complex.
The one thing we can't do in software is different header size for
virtio net. For starters, let's add a capability to address that?

-- 
MST