On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 03:50:00PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > From: Parav Pandit > > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 10:12 AM > > > > Michael, > > > > > From: Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com> > > > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 2:07 PM > > > We don't need to do it now. > > > > > > > Current VF capability is kind of ok I guess ... > > > > > > > Already proposed one? > > > > > > > If you want admin command to query then it would need to map in PF > > > memory. > > > No need. > > > It is similar to rest of the configuration access commands. > > > > > > > I understand two concerns with this: > > > > - you worry that this forces ordering requirements - it's true and I > > > > don't know of a good fix. So if possible use VF BAR by preference? > > > > - you worry about wasting physical memory space > > > > this we can fix by sticking VF# in the kick. > > > > > > > > As an alternative, if we can make the new command able to > > > > communicate offset in PCI BAR or in VF BAR or both then I think > > > > that's also an acceptable > > > > > > A new command proposed was for VF BAR that member driver can ask to > > > its group owner driver (like rest of the config commands). > > > > > > > Are you ok with the admin command to query the notification address of the > > member device bar? > > > > I presented both the proposals. > > We need to conclude this now without keep flipping between two from version > > to version. > > > > a. v3 with admin command > > pros: > > 1. self-contained via AQ for rest of the control path operations. > > 2. Can work with future siov device who may want to support legacy 3. > > Doesn't > > bake things in low level pci capabilities which is hard to get rid of 4. > > Able to add > > new command or new response if some device wants to support this on PF > > (very unlikely) > > > Given that this has more pros and no objection to it, > I will revise v7 today with query admin command like v3.
Not like v3 please. If you want to re-open this: First I think we need multiple offsets just like notification capaiblity, sorted by priority. Second I think we need ability to report offset within owner not member. So please add ability to report multiple offsets, and add e.g. a flags field, with bits for owner, member. > > b. and v6 with capability extension. > > Cons: > > 1. Does not have above advantages > > > > Pros: > > 1. Uses existing PCI capability for the extension > > > > > > > A future command can tell for the PF BAR if needed and some device > > > wants to do such extra implementation. > > > > > > > compromize: > > > > drivers that have trouble mapping VF BAR after querying PF can just > > > > map PF BAR. WDYT? > > > > > > PF BAR for notification can be done later when there is some device > > > who really have the limitation and wants to do that. > > > We don't see that additional need as driver notifications are present > > > on the VF already as listed in the alternative. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
