From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: phys_port_id in switchdev mode?
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:13:22 -0300
Message-ID: <20180831201321.GA4590@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20180828200539.1c0fe607@cakuba.netronome.com>
 <20180828204351.34fe457f@cakuba.netronome.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>,
        "mchan@broadcom.com" <mchan@broadcom.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
        Frederick Botha <frederick.botha@netronome.com>,
        nick viljoen <nick.viljoen@netronome.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-qk1-f178.google.com ([209.85.222.178]:40032 "EHLO
        mail-qk1-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1727281AbeIAAWp (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 31 Aug 2018 20:22:45 -0400
Received: by mail-qk1-f178.google.com with SMTP id c126-v6so2210626qkd.7
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 13:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180828204351.34fe457f@cakuba.netronome.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 08:43:51PM +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Ugh, CC: netdev..
> 
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 20:05:39 +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I wonder if we can use phys_port_id in switchdev to group together
> > interfaces of a single PCI PF?  Here is the problem:

On Mellanox cards, this is already possible via phys_switch_id, as
each PF has its own phys_switch_id. So all VFs with a given
phys_switch_id belong to the PF with that same phys_switch_id.

I understand this is a vendor-specific design, but if you have the
same phys_switch_id across PFs, does it really matter on which PF the
VF was created on?

  Marcelo