On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:08:12PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> We can debate and change from cvq to new cfgvq as part of the journey.
> It is fine.
Just to stress, cvq has a bunch of drawbacks. For example it is
hard to access from the hypervisor since it's DMA from VF.
This is why I think our direction should be to add a vq
transport that does all config accesses over admin commands.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
But, let's distinguish between requirements, and between
requirements and design. Getting supported counters is a requirement.
Doing this over cvq is a design. Reducing MMIO registers is
a requirement. OK?
--
MST
