Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 05:23:58PM CEST, k...@kernel.org wrote: >On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:00:11 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>> I didn't quite get the fact that you want to not show controller ID on the >>>> local >>>> port, initially. >>> Mainly to not_break current users. >> >> You don't have to take it to the name, unless "external" flag is set. >> >> But I don't really see the point of showing !external, cause such >> controller number would be always 0. Jakub, why do you think it is >> needed? > >It may seem reasonable for a smartNIC where there are only two >controllers, and all you really need is that external flag. > >In a general case when users are trying to figure out the topology >not knowing which controller they are sitting at looks like a serious >limitation.
I think we misunderstood each other. I never proposed just "external" flag. What I propose is either: 1) ecnum attribute absent for local ecnum attribute absent set to 0 for external controller X ecnum attribute absent set to 1 for external controller Y ... or: 2) ecnum attribute absent for local, external flag set to false ecnum attribute absent set to 0 for external controller X, external flag set to true ecnum attribute absent set to 1 for external controller Y, external flag set to true > >Example - multi-host system and you want to know which controller you >are to run power cycle from the BMC side. > >We won't be able to change that because it'd change the names for you.
