Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower vnic

Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 04:38:28AM CET, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:55:20 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

From: Jiri Pirko <redacted>

Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
index aed8df0e9d41..1890af7e6196 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c

@@ -427,10 +427,9 @@ static int nfp_flower_vnic_alloc(struct nfp_app *app, struct nfp_net *nn,
 		goto err_invalid_port;
 	}
 
-	eth_hw_addr_random(nn->dp.netdev);
 	netif_keep_dst(nn->dp.netdev);
 
-	return 0;
+	return nfp_app_nic_vnic_alloc(app, nn, id);
 
 err_invalid_port:
 	nn->port = nfp_port_alloc(app, NFP_PORT_INVALID, nn->dp.netdev);

This will associate the PF netdev with physical port, incl. all ethtool
information.  Im not sure we want to do that.  phy_repr carries this
functionality.

I was not sure originally what this port is. Okay, what I would like to
see is another port flavour for "pf" and "vf". I guess that since the pf
has the same pci address, it would fall under the same devlink instance.
For vfs, which have each separate pci address, I would like to create
devlink instance for each and associate with one devlink port flavour
"vf".