[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191108135109.0c833847@cakuba>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:51:09 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net, kvm@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
saeedm@...lanox.com, kwankhede@...dia.com, leon@...nel.org,
cohuck@...hat.com, jiri@...lanox.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/19] Mellanox, mlx5 sub function support
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:39:52 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Please let me understand how your device is different.
> >> Originally Parav didn't want to have mlx5 subfunctions as mdev. He
> >> wanted to have them tight to the same pci device as the pf. No
> >> difference from what you describe you want. However while we thought
> >> about how to fit things in, how to handle na phys_port_name, how to see
> >> things in sysfs we came up with an idea of a dedicated bus.
> >
> >The difference is that there is naturally a main device and subslices
> >with this new mlx5 code. In mlx4 or nfp all ports are equal and
> >statically allocated when FW initializes based on port breakout.
>
> Ah, I see. I was missing the static part in nfp. Now I understand. It is
> just an another "pf", but not real pf in the pci terminology, right?
Ack, due to (real and perceived) HW limitations what should have been
separate PFs got squished into a single big one.
Biggest NFP chip has an insane (for a NIC) number Ethernet ports.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists