On 14-Feb-18 12:48 AM, Zhang, Xiaohua wrote:
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)"?
Well, from AVP PMD documentation, it seems that AVP is classified as a
NIC. Can't we just add it to the list of NICs, even if it's not Ethernet
class 0x20xx? Pattern-matching in devbind should work either way. For
example, you can see there's "cavium_pkx" already classified as a NIC,
even though its class is 08xx, not 02xx. So why not this one?
Alternatively, if you think that would be confusing, how about instead
of "memory devices" call it "other devices", for cases which don't fit
into one of the DPDK categories?
From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 7:07 PM
To: BURAKOV, ANATOLY; Zhang, Xiaohua; email@example.com
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:
AVP is a virtual NIC type, so you are right.
When using the AVP device, you will see the following information from lspci
Class: Unclassified device [00ff]
Vendor: Red Hat, Inc [1af4]
Device: Virtio memory balloon 
SVendor: Red Hat, Inc [1af4]
SDevice: Device 
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
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" ?
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