Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:49:51PM CEST, pa...@mellanox.com wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 4:07 PM >> To: Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com> >> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com>; Jiri Pirko >> <j...@mellanox.com>; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Saeed Mahameed >> <sae...@mellanox.com>; vivien.dide...@gmail.com; and...@lunn.ch; >> f.faine...@gmail.com >> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] devlink: Introduce PCI PF port flavour and >> port attribute >> >> Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 06:46:13AM CEST, pa...@mellanox.com wrote: >> > >> > >> >> -----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? >> >> The original intention was like that. See the desc of >> devlink_port_attrs_set(): >> >> * @port_number: number of the port that is facing user, for example >> * the front panel port number >> >> For vf/pf representors, this is not applicable and should be indeed avoided. >> >Physical port number is not applicable but this is useful information that >completes the eswitch picture. >Because eswitch has this termination end point anyway.
Use port_index. That is up to the driver to put whatever value there. >Instead of inventing some new vendor specific field, I see value in using >existing port_number field. >Will wait for others inputs. > >> However, we expose it for DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_CPU and >> DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_DSA. Not sure if it makes sense there either. >> Ccing Florian, Andrew and Vivien. >> What do you guys think? >> >> Perhaps we should have: >> if (attrs->flavour == DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_PHYSICAL && >> nla_put_u32(msg, DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_NUMBER, attrs- >> >port_number)) >> return -EMSGSIZE; >> in devlink_nl_port_attrs_put() >
