Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower vnic

[Jiri Pirko]

Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 04:32:02AM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:29:41 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >This will associate the PF netdev with physical port, incl. all ethtool
>> >information.  Im not sure we want to do that.  phy_repr carries this
>> >functionality.  
>> 
>> I was not sure originally what this port is. Okay, what I would like to
>> see is another port flavour for "pf" and "vf". I guess that since the pf
>> has the same pci address, it would fall under the same devlink instance.
>> For vfs, which have each separate pci address, I would like to create
>> devlink instance for each and associate with one devlink port flavour
>> "vf".
>
>Why do we need a devlink instance and phys port name for vfs?  Just
>wondering..  It seems they should be covered by having different bus
>address.  For full coverage of all netdevs?

It is a matter of identification I believe. Pfs are under the same pci
address for nfp right? I think that user has to see then and
distinguish. For VFs and nfp, I agree this is probably not necessary, as
the pci address is different and there is also a different driver name.
But for mlx5 for example, the same driver name is shown for all netdevs
including VFs.

Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower vnic

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:29:41 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >This will associate the PF netdev with physical port, incl. all ethtool
> >information.  Im not sure we want to do that.  phy_repr carries this
> >functionality.  
> 
> I was not sure originally what this port is. Okay, what I would like to
> see is another port flavour for "pf" and "vf". I guess that since the pf
> has the same pci address, it would fall under the same devlink instance.
> For vfs, which have each separate pci address, I would like to create
> devlink instance for each and associate with one devlink port flavour
> "vf".

Why do we need a devlink instance and phys port name for vfs?  Just
wondering..  It seems they should be covered by having different bus
address.  For full coverage of all netdevs?

Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower vnic

[Jiri Pirko]

Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 04:38:28AM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:55:20 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko 
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko 
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c | 3 +--
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c 
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
>> index aed8df0e9d41..1890af7e6196 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
>> @@ -427,10 +427,9 @@ static int nfp_flower_vnic_alloc(struct nfp_app *app, 
>> struct nfp_net *nn,
>>  goto err_invalid_port;
>>  }
>>  
>> -eth_hw_addr_random(nn->dp.netdev);
>>  netif_keep_dst(nn->dp.netdev);
>>  
>> -return 0;
>> +return nfp_app_nic_vnic_alloc(app, nn, id);
>>  
>>  err_invalid_port:
>>  nn->port = nfp_port_alloc(app, NFP_PORT_INVALID, nn->dp.netdev);
>
>This will associate the PF netdev with physical port, incl. all ethtool
>information.  Im not sure we want to do that.  phy_repr carries this
>functionality.

I was not sure originally what this port is. Okay, what I would like to
see is another port flavour for "pf" and "vf". I guess that since the pf
has the same pci address, it would fall under the same devlink instance.
For vfs, which have each separate pci address, I would like to create
devlink instance for each and associate with one devlink port flavour
"vf".

Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower vnic

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:55:20 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko 
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c 
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
> index aed8df0e9d41..1890af7e6196 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
> @@ -427,10 +427,9 @@ static int nfp_flower_vnic_alloc(struct nfp_app *app, 
> struct nfp_net *nn,
>   goto err_invalid_port;
>   }
>  
> - eth_hw_addr_random(nn->dp.netdev);
>   netif_keep_dst(nn->dp.netdev);
>  
> - return 0;
> + return nfp_app_nic_vnic_alloc(app, nn, id);
>  
>  err_invalid_port:
>   nn->port = nfp_port_alloc(app, NFP_PORT_INVALID, nn->dp.netdev);

This will associate the PF netdev with physical port, incl. all ethtool
information.  Im not sure we want to do that.  phy_repr carries this
functionality.

[patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower vnic

[Jiri Pirko]

From: Jiri Pirko 

Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko 
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c 
b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
index aed8df0e9d41..1890af7e6196 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
@@ -427,10 +427,9 @@ static int nfp_flower_vnic_alloc(struct nfp_app *app, 
struct nfp_net *nn,
goto err_invalid_port;
}
 
-   eth_hw_addr_random(nn->dp.netdev);
netif_keep_dst(nn->dp.netdev);
 
-   return 0;
+   return nfp_app_nic_vnic_alloc(app, nn, id);
 
 err_invalid_port:
nn->port = nfp_port_alloc(app, NFP_PORT_INVALID, nn->dp.netdev);
-- 
2.14.3