From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com ([209.85.128.195]:38763 "EHLO mail-wr0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750819AbeCXHlb (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Mar 2018 03:41:31 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f195.google.com with SMTP id m13so839097wrj.5 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 08:41:29 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, idosch@mellanox.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com, andrew@lunn.ch, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, michael.chan@broadcom.com, ganeshgr@chelsio.com, saeedm@mellanox.com, simon.horman@netronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com, dirk.vandermerwe@netronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, dsahern@gmail.com, vijaya.guvva@cavium.com, satananda.burla@cavium.com, raghu.vatsavayi@cavium.com, felix.manlunas@cavium.com, gospo@broadcom.com, sathya.perla@broadcom.com, vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com, tariqt@mellanox.com, eranbe@mellanox.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower vnic Message-ID: <20180324074129.GC1891@nanopsycho> References: <20180322105522.8186-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20180322105522.8186-11-jiri@resnulli.us> <20180322203828.5167c0ac@cakuba.netronome.com> <20180323062941.GH2074@nanopsycho.orion> <20180323203202.2c0b4433@cakuba.netronome.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180323203202.2c0b4433@cakuba.netronome.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 04:32:02AM CET, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com wrote: >On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:29:41 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >This will associate the PF netdev with physical port, incl. all ethtool >> >information. Im not sure we want to do that. phy_repr carries this >> >functionality. >> >> I was not sure originally what this port is. Okay, what I would like to >> see is another port flavour for "pf" and "vf". I guess that since the pf >> has the same pci address, it would fall under the same devlink instance. >> For vfs, which have each separate pci address, I would like to create >> devlink instance for each and associate with one devlink port flavour >> "vf". > >Why do we need a devlink instance and phys port name for vfs? Just >wondering.. It seems they should be covered by having different bus >address. For full coverage of all netdevs? It is a matter of identification I believe. Pfs are under the same pci address for nfp right? I think that user has to see then and distinguish. For VFs and nfp, I agree this is probably not necessary, as the pci address is different and there is also a different driver name. But for mlx5 for example, the same driver name is shown for all netdevs including VFs.