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 <j...@mellanox.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> >> --- >> 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".
