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?
