> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 7:46 AM
> To: Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com>
> Cc: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com>; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Saeed
> Mahameed <sae...@mellanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] devlink: Introduce PCI PF port flavour and
> port attribute
>
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 02:08:39 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > If you want to expose some device specific eswitch port ID please
> > > add a new attribute for that.
> > > The fact that that ID may match port_number for your device today is
> > > coincidental. port_number, and split attributes should not be
> > > exposed for PCI ports.
> >
> > So your concern is non mellanox hw has eswitch but there may not be a
> > unique handle to identify a eswitch port?
>
> That's not a concern, no. Like any debug attribute it should be optional.
>
> > Or that handle may be wider than 32-bit?
>
> 64 bit would probably be better, yes, although that wasn't my initial
> concern.
>
Why 32-bit is not enough?
> > And instead of treating port_number as handle, there should be
> > different attribute, is that the ask?
>
> Yes, the ask, as always, is to not abuse existing attributes to carry
> tangentially related information.
Why it is tangential?
Devlink_port has got a port_number. Depending on flavour this port_number
represents a port.
If it is floavour=PHYSICAL, its physical port number.
If it is eswitch pf/vf ports, it represents eswitch port.
Why you see it only as physical_port_number?
Jiri,
Do you see it this way too?
