> From: Kirti Wankhede [mailto:kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 4:45 AM > >> +* mdev_supported_types: > >> + List of current supported mediated device types and its details are added > >> +in this directory in following format: > >> + > >> +|- <parent phy device> > >> +|--- Vendor-specific-attributes [optional] > >> +|--- mdev_supported_types > >> +| |--- <type id> > >> +| | |--- create > >> +| | |--- name > >> +| | |--- available_instances > >> +| | |--- description /class > >> +| | |--- [devices] > >> +| |--- <type id> > >> +| | |--- create > >> +| | |--- name > >> +| | |--- available_instances > >> +| | |--- description /class > >> +| | |--- [devices] > >> +| |--- <type id> > >> +| |--- create > >> +| |--- name > >> +| |--- available_instances > >> +| |--- description /class > >> +| |--- [devices] > >> + > >> +[TBD : description or class is yet to be decided. This will change.] > > > > I thought that in previous discussions we had agreed to drop > > the <type id> concept and use the name as the unique identifier. > > When reporting these types in libvirt we won't want to report > > the type id values - we'll want the name strings to be unique. > > > > The 'name' might not be unique but type_id will be. For example that Neo > pointed out in earlier discussion, virtual devices can come from two > different physical devices, end user would be presented with what they > had selected but there will be internal implementation differences. In > that case 'type_id' will be unique. > Hi, Kirti, my understanding is that Neo agreed to use an unique type string (if you still called it <type id>), and then no need of additional 'name' field which can be put inside 'description' field. See below quote: --<from Alex>-- > I think your discovery only means that for your vendor driver, the name > will be "11" (as a string). Perhaps you'd like some sort of vendor > provided description within each type, but I am not in favor of having > an arbitrary integer value imply something specific within the sysfs > interface. IOW, the NVIDIA vendor driver should be able to create: > > 11 > ├── create > ├── description > ├── etc > └── resolution > > While Intel might create: > > Skylake-vGPU > ├── create > ├── description > ├── etc > └── resolution > > Maybe "description" is optional for vendors that use useful names? > Thanks, --<From Neo>-- > I think we should be able to have a unique vendor type string instead of an > arbitrary integer value there as long as we are allowed to have a description > field that can be used to show to the end user as "name / label". Thanks Kevin ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����o�^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
