A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 08:41:53AM -0800, H L wrote: > I have not modified any existing drivers, but instead I threw together > a bare-bones module enabling me to make a call to pci_iov_register() > and then poke at an SR-IOV adapter's /sys entries for which no driver > was loaded. > > It appears from my perusal thus far that drivers using these new > SR-IOV patches will require modification; i.e. the driver associated > with the Physical Function (PF) will be required to make the > pci_iov_register() call along with the requisite notify() function. > Essentially this suggests to me a model for the PF driver to perform > any "global actions" or setup on behalf of VFs before enabling them > after which VF drivers could be associated. Where would the VF drivers have to be associated? On the "pci_dev" level or on a higher one? Will all drivers that want to bind to a "VF" device need to be rewritten? > I have so far only seen Yu Zhao's "7-patch" set. I've not yet looked > at his subsequently tendered "15-patch" set so I don't know what has > changed. The hardware/firmware implementation for any given SR-IOV > compatible device, will determine the extent of differences required > between a PF driver and a VF driver. Yeah, that's what I'm worried/curious about. Without seeing the code for such a driver, how can we properly evaluate if this infrastructure is the correct one and the proper way to do all of this? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
