From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 17:42:05 +0300 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] Add miscellaneous configuration structure for PCI References: <20220426225824.5918-1-mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> <20220426225824.5918-6-mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> <20220515105131-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <87wnekfowv.fsf@redhat.com> From: Max Gurtovoy In-Reply-To: <87wnekfowv.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Cornelia Huck , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: jasowang@redhat.com, virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, oren@nvidia.com, parav@nvidia.com, shahafs@nvidia.com, aadam@redhat.com, virtio@lists.oasis-open.org List-ID: On 5/17/2022 1:12 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Sun, May 15 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 01:58:22AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>> This new structure will be used for adding new miscellaneous registers >>> for a virtio device configuration layout. >>> >>> For now, only admin_queue_index register is added. Admin virtqueue index >>> does not depend on the device type. Hence, add a PCI capability to read >>> the admin virtqueue index. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Parav Pandit >>> Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy >> >> I guess we discussed this but I forgot. Why do we have this new >> structure as opposed to just adding the value at the end of config >> structure? I was kind of hoping that the structure can be >> reused for CCW/MMIO and then we can add more use-cases with >> new transport and device independent structures. >> >> If we keep it transport specific I don't really understand why >> is it useful ... > Nod, just define a common misc_configuration struct and have the > individual transports access it in the way it works best for them. can we agree on it ? I think we got 3 acks on this in the past, are we opening this topic again ?