On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:
...

quoted

+static int bnxt_get_phys_port_name(struct net_device *dev, char *buf,
+                                size_t len)
+{
+     struct bnxt *bp = netdev_priv(dev);
+     int rc;
+
+     /* The PF and it's VF-reps only support the switchdev framework */
+     if (!BNXT_PF(bp))
+             return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
+     /* The switch-id that the pf belongs to is exported by
+      * the switchdev ndo. This name is just to distinguish from the
+      * vf-rep ports.
+      */
+     rc = snprintf(buf, len, "pf%d", bp->pf.port_id);

This is worrisome.  What do you mean by PF?  In my experience, since
for years PFs had one-to-one association with physical ports people use
the terms interchangeably.  This causes a lot of headaches in proper
eswitch modelling.

I'm not sure whether this is a HW limitation or engineers trying to
make things "easy for users" but most VF-representor patchsets we've
seen on netdev don't include PF representors.  NICs have 3 types of
ports - PFs, VFs and external ports/MACs.  For some reason there is a
tendency to keep pretending PF and physical port is the same entity,
which among other things makes it impossible to install VF->PF rules
(as in from VF to the host, not to the network).

Most high performance NIC vendors also have multi-PF NICs, even though
those are not deployed by wider public.  If we keep pretending PF is
the external port, those will get very awkward to model.  This is a bit
of a pet peeve of mine :)

Jakub, we'll consider implementing a PF-rep as an add-on feature...

If this bnxt_get_phys_port_name() relates to the external port, please
change your implementation to comply with
Documentation/networking/switchdev.txt, in particular:

quoted

Suggested naming convention is "swXpYsZ", where X is the switch name or ID, Y
is the port name or ID, and Z is the sub-port name or ID.  For example, sw1p1s0
would be sub-port 0 on port 1 on switch 1.

So for physical ports the convention is p<port_id>, and in case of
breakout p<port_id>s<subport_id>.

I'm sending a follow-up patch that fixes the naming for both the
external port and the VF-reps as proposed in your RFC ( switchdev:
clarify ndo_get_phys_port_name() formats)

thanks,
-Sathya