On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 06:43:44AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > Then there comes an open whether VFIO is a right place to host such > vendor specific provisioning interface. The existing mdev type based > provisioning mechanism was considered a bad fit already. > IIRC the previous discussion came to suggest putting the provisioning > interface in the PF driver. There may be chance to generalize and > move to VFIO but no idea what it will be until multiple drivers already > demonstrate their own implementations as the base for discussion. I am looking at fwctl do to alot of this in the SRIOV world. You'd provision the VF prior to opening VFIO using the fwctl interface and the VFIO would perceive a VF that has exactly the required properties. At least for SRIOV where the VM is talking directly to device FW, mdev/paravirtualization would be different. > But now seems you prefer to vendors putting their own provisioning > interface in VFIO directly? Maybe not, just that drm isn't the right place either. If the we do fwctl stuff then the VF provisioning would be done through a fwctl driver. I'm not entirely sure yet what this whole 'mgr' component is actually doing though. Jason
