On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 5:35 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 06:00:13PM -0400, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > > On 4/3/2023 5:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:25:02PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 2:02 PM > > > >
[...] > > > > tvq specific for legacy register access make sense. > > Some generic tvq is abstract and dont see any relation here. > > > > So better to name it as legacy_reg_transport_vq (lrt_vq). > > Again this assumes tvq will be rewritten on top of AQ. > I guess legacy can then become a new type of AQ command? > > And maybe you want a memory mapped register for AQ commands? I know > Jason really wanted that. > That's exactly why we decouple the commands from a specific transport (queue or register). It allows sufficient flexibility. Thanks --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
