Hi Yigit and Anantoly,
I checked the nics-17.11.pdf, the following is description:
"The Accelerated Virtual Port (AVP) device is a shared memory based device only
on virtualization platforms from Wind River Systems. The Wind River Systems
platform currently uses QEMU/KVM as its hypervisor and as such provides support
for all of
the QEMU supported virtual and/or emulated devices (e.g., virtio, e1000, etc.).
offers the virtio device type as the default device when launching a virtual
machine or creating
a virtual machine port. The AVP device is a specialized device available to
require increased throughput and decreased latency to meet the demands of their
I am afraid just "memory_device" will have some misunderstanding.
Could we put it as "avp device (shared memory based)"?
From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 7:07 PM
To: BURAKOV, ANATOLY; Zhang, Xiaohua; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] usertools/dpdk-devbind.py: add support for wind
river avp device
On 2/13/2018 10:06 AM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 13-Feb-18 1:43 AM, Zhang, Xiaohua wrote:
>> Hi Anatoly,
>> AVP is a virtual NIC type, so you are right.
>> When using the AVP device, you will see the following information from lspci
>> Slot: 0000:00:05.0
>> Class: Unclassified device [00ff]
>> Vendor: Red Hat, Inc [1af4]
>> Device: Virtio memory balloon 
>> SVendor: Red Hat, Inc [1af4]
>> SDevice: Device 
>> PhySlot: 5
>> Driver: virtio-pci
>> It is a little different with the standard "Ethernet" controller, such as
>> "Class: Ethernet controller ".
>> Theoretically, the AVP is a memory based device. That's the reason, I put it
>> as separate catalog.
> OK, fair enough. Is there any way we can make this category
> not-WindRiver AVP specific? Are there other similar devices out there
> that could potentially fit into this category?
Can we call it "memory_devices" instead of "avp_devices" ?
>> Xiaohua Zhang
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Is there any particular reason why this device appears in its own category,
>> rather than being added to one of the existing device classes?
>> I'm not familiar with AVP but it looks like it's a NIC, so shouldn't it be
>> in network_devices category?