Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 04:32:02AM CET, jakub.kicin...@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.
