On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 12:52 PM Luca Vizzarro <luca.vizza...@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew, > > Thank you for clarifying. It makes more sense now. > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 08:37:58AM +0000, Andrew Bailey wrote: > > diff --git a/dts/framework/testbed_model/port.py > b/dts/framework/testbed_model/port.py > > index fc58e2b993..e9ad145f97 100644 > > --- a/dts/framework/testbed_model/port.py > > +++ b/dts/framework/testbed_model/port.py > > @@ -126,7 +126,12 @@ def original_driver(self) -> str | None: > > @property > > def bound_for_dpdk(self) -> bool: > > """Is the port bound to the driver for DPDK?""" > > - return self.current_driver == self.config.os_driver_for_dpdk > > + dpdk_driver = self.config.os_driver_for_dpdk > > + > > + if "TG" in self.node.name: > > + return self.current_driver == dpdk_driver and dpdk_driver > != self.config.os_driver > > The `node.name` is an arbitrary name that is chosen by the user. > Unfortunately this is not a reliable approach. > > Another issue is that this logic doesn't really make a lot of sense in > the context of this property. I'd much rather have a `bound_for_kernel` > property, and then fix the checks appropriately where these are called. > A proposed list comprehension without actually creating the bound_for_kernel property: ports_to_bring_up = [p for p in ports if (p.current_driver == port.config.os_driver and not p.is_link_up)] But yes I think it makes sense to add a bound_for_kernel property. > > > As an aside, I would like to send a patch soon which changes os_driver to kernel_driver and os_driver_for_dpdk to dpdk_driver throughout the DTS codebase.
