On Mon, May 16 2022, Parav Pandit <> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>>
From: Michael S. Tsirkin <>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 11:24 AM
>
> [..]
>
>> > +\subsection{VIRTIO ADMIN DEVICE CAPS ACCEPT
>> command}\label{sec:Basic
>> > +Facilities of a Virtio Device / Admin command set / VIRTIO ADMIN
>> > +DEVICE CAPS ACCEPT command}
>> > +
>> > +The VIRTIO_ADMIN_DEVICE_CAPS_ACCEPT command is used by the
>> driver to acknowledge those admin capabilities it understands and wishes to
>> use.
>>
>>
>> ok so we have a protocol here, kind of like feature negotiation. Please write
>> its description.
>> e.g. is it ok to change accepted caps? when? can device change its caps etc
>> etc etc.
>>
>> Avoiding this kind of spec work is exactly why me and jason keep telling you
>> to consider just using features instead. Add a 64 bit admin features field to
>> the PCI transport and be done with it. CCW and MMIO already have feature
>> selector so it's trivial to add feature bits.
>>
> As we begin to scale with the device, adding more and more registers like this demands more on-device real estate to comply to the PCI standards.
>
> And therefore, things are queried/accessed rare or occasionally, are better accessed via a queue interface.
>
> One can argue that admin VQ is proposed only for the mgmt. functions so having this cfg register for PF is enough.
>
> However, AQ may find some usage in the VF/SF themselves down the road.
> Hence, keeping the cap exchange transport this way is more optimal.
>
> Max has called out this AQ rationale in 4 or 5 points in the cover letter.
I'm not against using a queue, but why not use feature bits for
capabilities? As Michael said, the infrastructure for that is already in
place.
