From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC3F1B2E9 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 10:57:28 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Feb 2018 01:57:27 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,511,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="174962124" Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.71]) ([10.237.220.71]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2018 01:57:25 -0800 To: "Zhang, Xiaohua" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <1518342737-9244-1-git-send-email-xiaohua.zhang@windriver.com> <3bc80bbb-155a-c9f7-1b9d-b6e26ca42e37@intel.com> <5620FA0292C24E4EAAAE8FBE2DB3A7A50128936DD4@ALA-MBD.corp.ad.wrs.com> <7669d512-828b-afaf-3f44-c14da84b0ec2@intel.com> <5620FA0292C24E4EAAAE8FBE2DB3A7A5012893ACD3@ALA-MBD.corp.ad.wrs.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:57:25 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5620FA0292C24E4EAAAE8FBE2DB3A7A5012893ACD3@ALA-MBD.corp.ad.wrs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] usertools/dpdk-devbind.py: add support for wind river avp device X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:57:29 -0000 On 14-Feb-18 12:48 AM, Zhang, Xiaohua wrote: > Hi Yigit and Anantoly, > I checked the nics-17.11.pdf, the following is description: > "The Accelerated Virtual Port (AVP) device is a shared memory based device only available > on virtualization platforms from Wind River Systems. The Wind River Systems virtualization > platform currently uses QEMU/KVM as its hypervisor and as such provides support for all of > the QEMU supported virtual and/or emulated devices (e.g., virtio, e1000, etc.). The platform > offers the virtio device type as the default device when launching a virtual machine or creating > a virtual machine port. The AVP device is a specialized device available to customers that > require increased throughput and decreased latency to meet the demands of their performance > focused applications." > > I am afraid just "memory_device" will have some misunderstanding. > Could we put it as "avp device (shared memory based)"? > > Hi, Well, from AVP PMD documentation, it seems that AVP is classified as a NIC. Can't we just add it to the list of NICs, even if it's not Ethernet class 0x20xx? Pattern-matching in devbind should work either way. For example, you can see there's "cavium_pkx" already classified as a NIC, even though its class is 08xx, not 02xx. So why not this one? Alternatively, if you think that would be confusing, how about instead of "memory devices" call it "other devices", for cases which don't fit into one of the DPDK categories? > > BR. > Xiaohua Zhang > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 7:07 PM > To: BURAKOV, ANATOLY; Zhang, Xiaohua; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] usertools/dpdk-devbind.py: add support for wind river avp device > > On 2/13/2018 10:06 AM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >> On 13-Feb-18 1:43 AM, Zhang, Xiaohua wrote: >>> Hi Anatoly, >>> AVP is a virtual NIC type, so you are right. >>> >>> When using the AVP device, you will see the following information from lspci (example). >>> Slot: 0000:00:05.0 >>> Class: Unclassified device [00ff] >>> Vendor: Red Hat, Inc [1af4] >>> Device: Virtio memory balloon [1002] >>> SVendor: Red Hat, Inc [1af4] >>> SDevice: Device [0005] >>> PhySlot: 5 >>> Driver: virtio-pci >>> >>> It is a little different with the standard "Ethernet" controller, such as "Class: Ethernet controller [0200]". >>> Theoretically, the AVP is a memory based device. That's the reason, I put it as separate catalog. >>> >> >> OK, fair enough. Is there any way we can make this category >> not-WindRiver AVP specific? Are there other similar devices out there >> that could potentially fit into this category? > > Can we call it "memory_devices" instead of "avp_devices" ? > >> >>> >>> BR. >>> Xiaohua Zhang >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >>> >>> Is there any particular reason why this device appears in its own category, rather than being added to one of the existing device classes? >>> I'm not familiar with AVP but it looks like it's a NIC, so shouldn't it be in network_devices category? >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> Anatoly >>> >> >> > -- Thanks, Anatoly