From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: standardize device identification Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 16:34:03 +0100 Message-ID: <40957417.C216t4nj8c@xps> References: <1512027330-30030-1-git-send-email-yliu@fridaylinux.org> <2746853.LkVxvJSmNi@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Yuanhan Liu , Adrien Mazarguil , Ciara Loftus , Kevin Traynor , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" To: Finn Christensen Return-path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965381B03D for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:34:25 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 05/01/2018 15:14, Finn Christensen: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > >05/01/2018 12:09, Finn Christensen: > >> From: Thomas Monjalon > >> Which property can help to distinguish Napatech ports? > >> Can you use class=eth,dev_port=X ? > >> The dev_port property will use /sys/class/net/DEV/dev_port on Linux. Is it > >> OK for you? > >> > >> Actually, what we were thinking of was using the mac property in the > >> class category to distinguish our ports. > >> For instance: > >> -w bus=pci,id=0000:01:00.0/class=eth,mac=00:11:22:33:44:55 > >> or simply: > >> -w class=eth,mac=00:11:22:33:44:55 > > > >The problem with the mac property is that it cannot be used for > >white/blacklisting in DPDK because the MAC is not known before port > >initialization. > > > > Sure, that makes sense. I just for a minute thought that we could use that > mechanism to enable individual ports at startup also. We will continue to > use proprietary devargs passed by whiterlist to the PMD probe function. > What we needed was a way to select the individual ports, by using > rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name(). The whitelist will be replaced by this new syntax. And yes, you can have your own driver-specific property with this syntax. > >> We will not be able to support the dev_port property, that will not work for > >us. > >> At least not for now. It leads to a totally different question: Can we discuss again how to integrate your driver in DPDK upstream? Please explain again your situation in a new thread.