On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:44:58PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 30/11/2017 22:21, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:35:11 +0100 > > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > > 30/11/2017 18:15, Stephen Hemminger: > > > > Some thoughts. > > > > 1) Not all devices are PCI; look at recent VMBUS > > > > > > Yes, we need a syntax which works for every devices. > > > I suggest to use the prefix "pci:" before the PCI id. > > > We need also a prefix and ids for NXP buses. > > > We could use "vmbus:" before VMBUS ids. > > > How VMBUS ids look like? > > >
rte_devargs are easily accessible, user-readable. Only thing missing would be requiring a 1-1 mapping between an rte_devargs and a port, thus requiring PMDs to have at least one version of a device string that would probe a single port (as is done with port= in mlx4). Implementing an rte_devargs to rte_device in rte_bus is simple enough, and this would allow implementing an rte_devargs to port_id in rte_eth. What am I missing? > > > > 2) The name may have to be set before MAC address is determined on > > > > boot. > > > > > > I don't understand this comment. > > > Do you mean MAC may be unknown when starting DPDK? > > > > The MAC be known by the hardware, but the device would have to be > > created before using hardware to read it. > > Indeed, it is a problem if we want to use this syntax for blacklist. > > > > > > 3) The names themselves are not persistent or human friendly. This is > > > > hard > > > > see the effort udev goes to. > > > > > > Yes udev has a syntax to identify devices. It can be inspiring. > > > Qemu may also be inspiring: > > > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/docs/qdev-device-use.txt > -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND
