From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-qt0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]:44396 "EHLO
        mail-qt0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751221AbeCXDcH (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 23 Mar 2018 23:32:07 -0400
Received: by mail-qt0-f176.google.com with SMTP id j26so14609634qtl.11
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 20:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 20:32:02 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, idosch@mellanox.com,
        mlxsw@mellanox.com, andrew@lunn.ch,
        vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        michael.chan@broadcom.com, ganeshgr@chelsio.com,
        saeedm@mellanox.com, simon.horman@netronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com,
        dirk.vandermerwe@netronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com,
        ogerlitz@mellanox.com, dsahern@gmail.com, vijaya.guvva@cavium.com,
        satananda.burla@cavium.com, raghu.vatsavayi@cavium.com,
        felix.manlunas@cavium.com, gospo@broadcom.com,
        sathya.perla@broadcom.com, vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com,
        tariqt@mellanox.com, eranbe@mellanox.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower
 vnic
Message-ID: <20180323203202.2c0b4433@cakuba.netronome.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180323062941.GH2074@nanopsycho.orion>
References: <20180322105522.8186-1-jiri@resnulli.us>
        <20180322105522.8186-11-jiri@resnulli.us>
        <20180322203828.5167c0ac@cakuba.netronome.com>
        <20180323062941.GH2074@nanopsycho.orion>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:29:41 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >This will associate the PF netdev with physical port, incl. all ethtool
> >information.  Im not sure we want to do that.  phy_repr carries this
> >functionality.  
> 
> I was not sure originally what this port is. Okay, what I would like to
> see is another port flavour for "pf" and "vf". I guess that since the pf
> has the same pci address, it would fall under the same devlink instance.
> For vfs, which have each separate pci address, I would like to create
> devlink instance for each and associate with one devlink port flavour
> "vf".

Why do we need a devlink instance and phys port name for vfs?  Just
wondering..  It seems they should be covered by having different bus
address.  For full coverage of all netdevs?