On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 08:49:19AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > 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? The current model being implemented by my colleagues has separate drivers for the PF (aka native) and VF devices. I don't personally believe this is the correct path, but I'm reserving judgement until I see some code. I don't think we really know what the One True Usage model is for VF devices. Chris Wright has some ideas, I have some ideas and Yu Zhao has some ideas. I bet there's other people who have other ideas too. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- 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
