On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 10:41:16 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 07:04:50PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: > >PCI endpoint corresponds to a PCI device, but such device > >can have one more more logical device ports associated with it. > >We need a way to distinguish those. Add a PCI subport in the > >dumps and print the info in phys_port_name appropriately. > > > >This is not equivalent to port splitting, there is no split > >group. It's just a way of representing multiple netdevs on > >a single PCI function. > > > >Note that the quality of being multiport pertains only to > >the PCI function itself. A PF having multiple netdevs does > >not mean that its VFs will also have multiple, or that VFs > >are associated with any particular port of a multiport VF. > > > >Example (bus 05 device has subports, bus 82 has only one port per > >function): > > > >$ devlink port > >pci/0000:05:00.0/0: type eth netdev enp5s0np0 flavour physical > >pci/0000:05:00.0/10000: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0s0 flavour pci_pf pf 0 > >subport 0 > >pci/0000:05:00.0/4: type eth netdev enp5s0np1 flavour physical > >pci/0000:05:00.0/11000: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0s1 flavour pci_pf pf 0 > >subport 1 > > So these subport devlink ports are eswitch ports for subports, right? > > Please see the following drawing: > > +---+ +---+ +---+ > pfsub| 5 | vf| 6 | | 7 |pfsub > +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ > physical link <---------+ | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ > | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 | > +--+---+------+---+------+---+------+---+--+ > | physical pfsub vf pfsub | > | port port port port | > | | > | eswitch | > | | > | | > +------------------------------------------+ > > 1) pci/0000:05:00.0/0: type eth netdev enp5s0np0 flavour physical switch_id > 00154d130d2f > 2) pci/0000:05:00.0/10000: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0s0 flavour pci_pf pf 0 > subport 0 switch_id 00154d130d2f > 3) pci/0000:05:00.0/10001: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0vf0 flavour pci_vf pf 0 > vf 0 switch_id 00154d130d2f > 4) pci/0000:05:00.0/10001: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0s1 flavour pci_pf pf 0 > subport 1 switch_id 00154d130d2f > > This is basically what you have and I think we are in sync with that. > But what about 5,6,7? Should they have devlink port instances too? > > 5) pci/0000:05:00.0/1: type eth netdev enp5s0f0?? flavour ???? pf 0 subport 0 > 6) pci/0000:05:10.1/0: type eth netdev enp5s10f0 flavour ???? pf 0 vf 0 > 7) pci/0000:05:00.0/1: type eth netdev enp5s0f0?? flavour ???? pf 0 subport 1 > > These are the "peers". > I think that there could be flavours "pci_pf" and "pci_vf". Then the > "representors" (switch ports) could have flavours "pci_pf_port" and > "pci_vf_port" or something like that. User can see right away > that is not "PF" of "VF" but rather something "on the other end". > Note there is no "switch_id" for these devlink ports that tells the user > these devlink ports are not part of any switch. > What do you think?
Hmmm.. Hm. Hm. To me its neat if the devlink instance matches an ASIC. I think it's kind of clear for people to understand what it stands for then. So if we wanted to do the above we'd have to make the switch_id the first class identifier for devlink instances, rather than the bus? But then VF instances don't have a switch ID so that doesn't work... I need to think about it. It's also kind of strange that we have to add the noun *port* to the flavour of... a port... So I would prefer not to have those showing up as ports. Can we invent a new command (say "partition"?) that'd take the bus info where the partition is to be spawned? My next goal is to find a way of grouping multiple bus devices under one "ASIC" (which is a devlink instance to me) so it can be understood easily how things are laid out when there is more than one PF connected to one host.
