On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:44:21 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 2:37 PM > > To: Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com> > > Cc: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us>; Samudrala, Sridhar > > <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com>; da...@davemloft.net; > > netdev@vger.kernel.org; oss-driv...@netronome.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] devlink: allow subports on devlink PCI > > ports > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:22:33 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > >>>>>>2. flavour should not be vf/pf, flavour should be hostport, > > >>>>>>switchport. > > >>> >Because switch is flat and agnostic of pf/vf/mdev. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Not sure. It's good to have this kind of visibility. > > >>>>> > > >>>> port can have label/attribute indicating that this belong to VF-1 > > >>>> or mdev as long as you are agreeing to have mdev attribute on host > > >>>> port. > > >>>> (and not ask for abstracting it, because mdev is well defined kernel > > >>>> object). > > >>> > > >>> Why mdev cannot be another flavour? > > >>> > > >> > > >> hostport is of type pf/vf/mdev connected to some switchport. > > >> > > >> So proposal is to have, > > >> port flavour = hostport/switchport > > >> port type/label = pf/vf/mdev > > >> > > > Instead of having two attributes per port, how about having, port > > > flavour= physical/cpu/dsa/pf/vf/mdev/switchport. > > > > > > physical and pf has some overlapping definitions. > > > > What "overlapping definitions" do physical and PF have? > PF has physically user facing port.
PF doesn't "have a user facing port" in switchdev mode. It's a limitation of Mellanox HW that you have some strong association there. > And physical port in include/uapi/linux/devlink.h also describe that. By "that" you must mean that the physical is a user facing port.
