> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:35 PM
> To: Varghese, Vipin <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; Dumitrescu, Cristian <[email protected]>;
> Byrne, Stephen1 <[email protected]>; Mcnamara, John
> <[email protected]>; Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc/tm: update support for pf only
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:34:51 +0530
> > From: Vipin Varghese <[email protected]>
> > To: [email protected], [email protected]
> > CC: [email protected], [email protected],
> > [email protected], Vipin Varghese <[email protected]>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc/tm: update support for pf only
> > X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1
> >
> >
> > Documentation is updated to highlight the support for DPDK ethernet
> > interface for Traffic Manager is currently limited to PF only.
>
> Why limit the specification to only PF devices? If a specific HW can
> support only PF devices, it can register tm ops only to PF devices.
> There are Hardwars which can support TM on VF as well, off course HW
> capabilities may be different, It can expressed with exiting TM capabilities
> structures.
NAK, Agree with Jerin.
The API is agnostic of the nature of ethdev port. The API is the same, whether
it is called for a PF port or for a VF port.
