Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 03:53:10AM +0100, kuba@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:44:35 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > Why would there still be PF instances? I'm not suggesting that you >> > create a hierarchy of instances. >> >> 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. > >> 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?
