RE: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] devlink: allow subports on devlink PCI ports

Jakub Kicinski
2019-03-18T19:59:44Z

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:44:21 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 2:37 PM
> > To: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> > Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>; Samudrala, Sridhar
> > <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>; davem@davemloft.net;
> > netdev@vger.kernel.org; oss-drivers@netronome.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] devlink: allow subports on devlink PCI
> > ports
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:22:33 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > >>>>>>2. flavour should not be vf/pf, flavour should be hostport, switchport.
> > >>> >Because switch is flat and agnostic of pf/vf/mdev.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Not sure. It's good to have this kind of visibility.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> port can have label/attribute indicating that this belong to VF-1
> > >>>> or mdev as long as you are agreeing to have mdev attribute on host port.
> > >>>> (and not ask for abstracting it, because mdev is well defined kernel object).
> > >>>
> > >>> Why mdev cannot be another flavour?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> hostport is of type pf/vf/mdev connected to some switchport.
> > >>
> > >> So proposal is to have,
> > >> port flavour = hostport/switchport
> > >> port type/label = pf/vf/mdev
> > >>
> > > Instead of having two attributes per port, how about having, port
> > > flavour= physical/cpu/dsa/pf/vf/mdev/switchport.
> > >
> > > physical and pf has some overlapping definitions.
> >
> > What "overlapping definitions" do physical and PF have?
> PF has physically user facing port.

PF doesn't "have a user facing port" in switchdev mode. It's a
limitation of Mellanox HW that you have some strong association
there.

> And physical port in include/uapi/linux/devlink.h also describe that.

By "that" you must mean that the physical is a user facing port.