[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230208153552.4be414f6@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:35:52 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Cc:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Fei Qin <fei.qin@...igine.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...igine.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 1/2] devlink: expose port function commands
 to assign VFs to multiple netdevs
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 13:37:08 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> I don't understand the difference between the two modes, 
> 1) "where VFs are associated with physical ports"
> 2) "another mode where all VFs are associated with one physical port"
> 
> anyway here how it works for ConnectX devices, and i think the model should
> be generalized to others as it simplifies the user life in my opinion.
I'm guessing the version of the NFP Simon posted this for behaves 
much like CX3 / mlx4. One PF, multiple Ethernet ports.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
