From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH] usertools/dpdk-devbind.py: add support for wind river avp device Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:06:38 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1518342737-9244-1-git-send-email-xiaohua.zhang@windriver.com> <3bc80bbb-155a-c9f7-1b9d-b6e26ca42e37@intel.com> <5620FA0292C24E4EAAAE8FBE2DB3A7A50128936DD4@ALA-MBD.corp.ad.wrs.com> <7669d512-828b-afaf-3f44-c14da84b0ec2@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Burakov, Anatoly" , "Zhang, Xiaohua" , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94768A84C for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:06:42 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <7669d512-828b-afaf-3f44-c14da84b0ec2@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 2/13/2018 10:06 AM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 13-Feb-18 1:43 AM, Zhang, Xiaohua wrote: >> Hi Anatoly, >> AVP is a virtual NIC type, so you are right. >> >> When using the AVP device, you will see the following information from lspci (example). >> Slot: 0000:00:05.0 >> Class: Unclassified device [00ff] >> Vendor: Red Hat, Inc [1af4] >> Device: Virtio memory balloon [1002] >> SVendor: Red Hat, Inc [1af4] >> SDevice: Device [0005] >> PhySlot: 5 >> Driver: virtio-pci >> >> It is a little different with the standard "Ethernet" controller, such as "Class: Ethernet controller [0200]". >> Theoretically, the AVP is a memory based device. That's the reason, I put it as separate catalog. >> > > OK, fair enough. Is there any way we can make this category > not-WindRiver AVP specific? Are there other similar devices out there > that could potentially fit into this category? Can we call it "memory_devices" instead of "avp_devices" ? > >> >> BR. >> Xiaohua Zhang >> >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> >> Is there any particular reason why this device appears in its own category, rather than being added to one of the existing device classes? >> I'm not familiar with AVP but it looks like it's a NIC, so shouldn't it be in network_devices category? >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Anatoly >> > >