[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKOOJTwuziJWKUFVNMtqbOeMnRx6eJF54zEu7GDaUJr_Tx1Rtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:05:57 -0800
From: Edwin Peer <edwin.peer@...adcom.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [pull request][net-next V10 00/14] Add mlx5 subfunction support
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:49 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
> I've never seen someone implement a NumVF > 256 by co-opting the bus
> number.
Usually the VF offset already places the VF routing IDs into a
different bus number range from the PF. That much at least works
today.
> Can Linux even assign more bus numbers to a port without firmware
> help? Bus numbers are something that requires the root complex to be
> aware of to setup routability.
I'm not sure, presumably something already infers this for the first
additional bus number based on the SR-IOV config capability?
Regards,
Edwin Peer
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4160 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists