On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:22:25 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> I'm not sure how you imagine getting rid of them. One PCI PF > >> instantiates one devlink now. There are lots of configuration (e.g. params) > >> that is per-PF. You need this instance for that, how else would you do > >> per-PF things on shared ASIC instance? > > > >There are per-PF ports, right? > > Depends. On normal host sr-iov, no. On smartnic where you have PF in > host, yes. Yet another "great choice" in mlx5 other drivers have foreseen problems with and avoided. > >> Creating SFs is per-PF operation for example. I didn't to thorough > >> analysis, but I'm sure there are couple of per-PF things like these. > > > >Seems like adding a port attribute to SF creation would be a much > >smaller extension than adding a layer of objects. > > > >> Also not breaking the existing users may be an argument to keep per-PF > >> instances. > > > >We're talking about multi-PF devices only. Besides pretty sure we > >moved multiple params and health reporters to be per port, so IDK > >what changed now. > > Looks like pretty much all current NICs are multi-PFs, aren't they? Not in a way which requires cross-port state sharing, no. You should know this.
