Re: [PATCH] doc: document the new devargs syntax

[Yuanhan Liu <yliu@fridaylinux.org>]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 23/01/2018 13:46, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 18/01/2018 08:35, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:34:08PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > > > > So does it make sense to separate them logically? Perhaps as "device identifier"
> > > > > > and "device args".
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then I think it returns back to the old issue: how could we identify a
> > > > > port when the bus id (say BDF for PCI bus) is not enough for identifying
> > > > > a port? Such case could happen when a single NIC has 2 ports sharing
> > > > > the same BDF. It could also happen with the VF representors that will
> > > > > be introduced shortly.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, the device matching syntax must include bus category, class category
> > > > and driver category. So any device can be identified in future.
> > > > 
> > > > But I think Ferruh is talking about separating device matching
> > > > (which is described in this proposal) and device settings
> > > > (which are usually mixed in -w and --vdev options).
> > > > I agree there are different things and may be separate.
> > > > They could share the same syntax (bus/class/driver) but be separate
> > > > with a semicolon:
> > > > 	matching;settings
> > >
> > > Can you give an example?
> > 
> > Let's take port addition in OVS-DPDK as an example. It happens in 2
> > steps:
> > - port lookup (if port is already probed)
> > - dev attachment (if lookup fails)
> > 
> > And also let's assume we need probe a ConnectX-3 port. Note that for
> > ConnectX-3, there are 2 ports sharing the same PCI addr. Thus, PCI
> > BDF is not enough. And let's assume we use another extra property
> > "port".
> > 
> > If the proposal described in this patch is being used, the devarg
> > would look like following:
> > 
> >     bus=pci,id=04:00.0/class=eth,port=0/driver=mlx4,mlx4_arg_A=val,...
> > 
> > Then "bus=pci,id=04:00.0/class=eth,port=0" will be used for lookup,
> > It means we are looking for a port with PCI BDF == 04:00.0 AND
> > port == 0 (the first port of the 2 ports).
> > 
> > Note that in my proposal the driver category is not intended for lookup.
> > If any properties needed be looked in the driver category, they would
> > probably need be elevated to the class category.
> 
> It is not my thought.
> I think we should be able to use bus, class and driver properties for lookup.
> We can imagine doing a lookup on a driver specific id, which is not
> candidate to elevation to the class category.
> 
> > If port not found, then the whole string will be used for dev attachment.
> > It means we are attaching a port with PCI BDF == 04.00.0 AND
> > port == 0 (the 2nd port will not be attached).
> > 
> > 
> > And here is how the devargs would look like if "matching;settings" is
> > being used:
> > 
> >     bus=pci,id=04:00.0/class=eth,port=0;bus=pci,id=04:00.0/class=eth,port=0/driver=mlx4,mlx4_arg_A=val,...
> > 
> > The part before ";" will be used for lookup and the later part will be
> > used for attachment. It should work. It just looks redundant.
> 
> It does not have to be redundant.
> It can be:
> 	bus=pci,id=04:00.0/class=eth,port=0;driver=mlx4,mlx4_arg1=settings1,...

I knew you would make such reply :)
Then there is a contradiction. According your suggestion, the "port=0" belongs
to the matching section, but it also has to be used in the settings section.

> Another example, setting the MAC address:
> 	bus=pci,id=04:00.0/class=eth,port=0;class=eth,mac=00:11:22:33:44:55

What's the scenario it will be used? And who is going to parse it?

	--yliu