Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:22:57PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:24:15 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: >> Hi Jiri, Jakub, Samudrala Sridhar, >> > > > > > And physical port in include/uapi/linux/devlink.h also describe >> > > > > > that. >> > > > > >> > > > > By "that" you must mean that the physical is a user facing port. >> > > > >> > > > Can you please describe the difference between 'PF port' and >> > > > 'physical port of include/uapi/linux/devlink.h'? I must have missed >> > > > this crisp definition in discussion between you and Jiri. I am in >> > > > meantime checking the thread. >> > > >> > > Perhaps start with the cover letter which includes an ASCII drawing? >> > > >> > > Using Mellanox nomenclature - PF port is a "representor" for the PF >> > > which may be on another Host (SmartNIC or multihost). It's pretty >> > > much the same thing as a VF port/"representor". >> > > >> > Yes. We are aligned here. :-) >> > I see your point, where in multi-host scenario, a physical port may be 1, >> > but >> > PF ports are 4, because of 4 PFs for 4 hosts. >> > (just an example of 4 hosts with their own mac address sharing 1 physical >> > port). >> > >> > When there is no multihost and one to one mapping between a PF and >> > physical links, there is some overlap between PF port and physical port >> > attributes. >> > I believe, such overlap is fine as long as we have unique indices for the >> > ports. >> > >> > So I am ok to have flavours as physical/cpu/dsa/pf/vf/mdev/switchport. >> > (last 4 as new port flavours). >> > >> > > Physical port is the hole on the panel of the adapter where cable goes. >> >> So my take away from above discussion are: >> 1. Following new port flavours should be added pci_pf/pci_vf/mdev/switchport. >> a. Switchport indicates port on the eswitch. Normally this port has >> rep-netdev attached to it. > >I don't understand the "switchport". Surely physical ports are also >attached to the eswitch? And one of the main purpose of adding the >pci_pf/pci_vf flavours was to generate phys_port_name for the port >netdevs. > >Please don't use the term representor if possible. Representor for >most developers describes the way the netdev is implemented in the >driver, so for Mellanox and Netronome different ports will be >representors and non-representors. That's why I prefer port netdev >(attached to eswitch, has switch_id) and host netdev (PF/VF netdev, >vNIC, VSI, etc). > >> b. host side port flavours are pci_pf/pci_vf/mdev which may be connected to >> switchport > >See above, pci_pf/pci_vf are needed for phys_port_name generation.
Yep, that makes sense. > >> 2. host side port flavours are not limited to Ethernet, as it is for >> devlink's port instance. >> >> 3. Each port is continue to be accessed using unique port index. >> >> 4. host side ports and switchport are control objects. >> a. switch side ports reside where current eswitch object of devlink instance >> reside >> b. for a given VF/PF/mdev such host side ports may be in hypervisor or VM or >> both >> depending on the privilege >> >> 5. eth.mac_address, rdma.port_guid can be programmed at >> host port flavours by extending as $ devlink port param set... >> (similar to devlink dev param set) > >You can keep restating that's your position, but I have *not* conceded >to that. I'm also not convinced that host dummy ports are good idea to hold these. > >> 6. more host port params can be added in future when user need arise >> >> 7. rep-netdev continue to be eswitch (switchport) representor at the switch >> side. >> a. Hence rep-netdev cannot be used for programming host port's parameters. >> >> 8. eswitch devlink instance knows when VF/PF/mdev's switchport are >> created/removed. >> Hence, those will be created/deleted by eswitch. >> Similarly for host port flavours too. >> >> Does it look fine? Did I miss something? >> We would like to progress on incremental patches for item-4 and >> any prep work needed to reach to item-4.
