[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+REcLbT6LYLJS7U@x130>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 16:55:12 -0800
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...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 08 Feb 15:35, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>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.
Then the question is, can they do PF per port and avoid such complex APIs ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists