Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 08:48:47PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >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
What do you mean by "first class identifier"? Like "a handle"? >VF instances don't have a switch ID so that doesn't work... Wait a sec. VF-ports do have. VFs them selves don't. But that is the same for PF. PF would also not have switch id. > >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 Yeah. >as ports. Can we invent a new command (say "partition"?) that'd take >the bus info where the partition is to be spawned? Got it. But the question is how different this object would be from the existing "port" we have today. > >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. These are the "aliases" you mentioned before right? Makes sense.
