On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:54:39 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 05:23:58PM CEST, k...@kernel.org wrote:
> >On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:00:11 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >>>> I didn't quite get the fact that you want to not show controller ID on
> >>>> the local
> >>>> port, initially.
> >>> Mainly to not_break current users.
> >>
> >> You don't have to take it to the name, unless "external" flag is set.
> >>
> >> But I don't really see the point of showing !external, cause such
> >> controller number would be always 0. Jakub, why do you think it is
> >> needed?
> >
> >It may seem reasonable for a smartNIC where there are only two
> >controllers, and all you really need is that external flag.
> >
> >In a general case when users are trying to figure out the topology
> >not knowing which controller they are sitting at looks like a serious
> >limitation.
>
> I think we misunderstood each other. I never proposed just "external"
> flag.
Sorry, I was just saying that assuming a single host SmartNIC the
controller ID is not necessary at all. You never suggested that, I did.
Looks like I just confused everyone with that comment :(
Different controller ID for different PFs but the same PCIe link would
be very wrong. So please clarify - if I have a 2 port smartNIC, with on
PCIe link to the host, and the embedded controller - what would I see?
> What I propose is either:
> 1) ecnum attribute absent for local
> ecnum attribute absent set to 0 for external controller X
> ecnum attribute absent set to 1 for external controller Y
> ...
>
> or:
> 2) ecnum attribute absent for local, external flag set to false
> ecnum attribute absent set to 0 for external controller X, external flag
> set to true
> ecnum attribute absent set to 1 for external controller Y, external flag
> set to true
I'm saying that I do want to see the the controller ID for all ports.
So:
3) local: { "controller ID": x }
remote1: { "controller ID": y, "external": true }
remote1: { "controller ID": z, "external": true }
We don't have to put the controller ID in the name for local ports, but
the attribute should be reported. AFAIU name was your main concern, no?
> >Example - multi-host system and you want to know which controller you
> >are to run power cycle from the BMC side.
> >
> >We won't be able to change that because it'd change the names for you.
