On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:15:01 +0000 Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
> >
> > I find it strange that you have pfnum 0 everywhere but then different
> > controllers.
> There are multiple PFs, connected to different PCI RC. So device has
> same pfnum for both the PFs.
>
> > For MultiHost at Netronome we've used pfnum to distinguish
> > between the hosts. ASIC must have some unique identifiers for each
> > PF.
> Yes. there is. It is identified by a unique controller number;
> internally it is called host_number. But internal host_number is
> misleading term as multiple cables of same physical card can be
> plugged into single host. So identifying based on a unique
> (controller) number and matching that up on external cable is desired.
>
> > I'm not aware of any practical reason for creating PFs on one RC
> > without reinitializing all the others.
> I may be misunderstanding, but how is initialization is related
> multiple PFs?
If the number of PFs is static it should be possible to understand
which one is on which system.
> > I can see how having multiple controllers may make things clearer,
> > but adding another layer of IDs while the one under it is unused
> > (pfnum=0) feels very unnecessary.
> pfnum=0 is used today. not sure I understand your comment about being
> unused. Can you please explain?
You examples only ever have pfnum 0:
From patch 2:
$ devlink port show pci/0000:00:08.0/2
pci/0000:00:08.0/2: type eth netdev eth7 controller 0 flavour pcivf pfnum 0
vfnum 1 splittable false
function:
hw_addr 00:00:00:00:00:00
$ devlink port show -jp pci/0000:00:08.0/2
{
"port": {
"pci/0000:00:08.0/1": {
"type": "eth",
"netdev": "eth7",
"controller": 0,
"flavour": "pcivf",
"pfnum": 0,
"vfnum": 1,
"splittable": false,
"function": {
"hw_addr": "00:00:00:00:00:00"
}
}
}
}
From earlier email:
pci/0000:00:08.0/1: type eth netdev eth6 flavour pcipf pfnum 0
pci/0000:00:08.0/2: type eth netdev eth7 flavour pcipf pfnum 0
If you never use pfnum, you can just put the controller ID there,
like Netronome.
> Hierarchical naming kind of make sense, but if you have other ideas
> to annotate the controller, without changing the hardware pfnum, lets
> discuss.
