From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: l3fwd error, port 0 is not present on the board Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:41:21 +0000 Message-ID: <20150106094120.GA1488@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <20150101040032.GA11645@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <1613023.VipzgMKAkl@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1613023.VipzgMKAkl@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 10:02:25AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-01-02 09:07, Lyn M: > > In my original post, I thought my choice of hex portmask -p 0x3 was causing > > this issue -- now I know that was not the case. But, I am still curious > > about how the hex portmask is determined. Since I only have two ports > > bound to igb_uio, my hex postmask will always be 0x3? What if I choose to > > bind other ports to igb_uio? Is there a Linux command I can run to > > determine what mask to use with the -p option? > > That's something which could be done. > Port numbering is defined by probing order. Does a tool showing the (dry-run) > probed devices, their number and mask, would help you? > By the way, you are welcome to try developing it. > > -- > Thomas The port numbering should generally be in the same order as the ports are listed in dpdk_nic_bind script, so perhaps we could just add a documentation note to that effect. /Bruce