From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: document the new devargs syntax Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:46:29 +0100 Message-ID: <1649717.sl7PR1QSdr@xps> References: <1516114218-21501-1-git-send-email-yliu@fridaylinux.org> <68453aa8-de09-c41b-0b84-82eb6bbe19ac@intel.com> <20180118073520.GZ29540@yliu-mob> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Yuanhan Liu , Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3961B021 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:47:04 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20180118073520.GZ29540@yliu-mob> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 18/01/2018 08:35, Yuanhan Liu: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:34:08PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > So does it make sense to separate them logically? Perhaps as "device identifier" > > and "device args". > > Then I think it returns back to the old issue: how could we identify a > port when the bus id (say BDF for PCI bus) is not enough for identifying > a port? Such case could happen when a single NIC has 2 ports sharing > the same BDF. It could also happen with the VF representors that will > be introduced shortly. Yes, the device matching syntax must include bus category, class category and driver category. So any device can be identified in future. But I think Ferruh is talking about separating device matching (which is described in this proposal) and device settings (which are usually mixed in -w and --vdev options). I agree there are different things and may be separate. They could share the same syntax (bus/class/driver) but be separate with a semicolon: matching;settings