[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 10/10] net/mlx5: support negative identifiers for port representors

[Adrien Mazarguil]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:58:05AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Adrien, thank for this patch.
> 
> Thursday, July 5, 2018 11:46 AM, Adrien Mazarguil:
> > Subject: [PATCH v4 10/10] net/mlx5: support negative identifiers for port
> > representors
> > 
> > This patch brings support for BlueField representors.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>
> > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs at mellanox.com>
> > --
> > v3 changes:
> > 
> > - This patch was not present in prior revisions.
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c | 8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c index
> > 12a77afa8..df7f39844 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c
> > @@ -1330,6 +1330,14 @@ mlx5_pci_probe(struct rte_pci_driver *pci_drv
> > __rte_unused,
> >  			memset(&list[i].info, 0, sizeof(list[i].info));
> >  			continue;
> >  		}
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Port representors not associated with any VFs (e.g. on
> > +		 * BlueField devices) report -1 as a port identifier.
> > +		 * Quietly set it to zero since DPDK only supports positive
> > +		 * values.
> > +		 */
> 
> I am waiting for the final answer from the BlueField team about the way they are going to enum the BlueField representors. 
> In case it will be the same as x86 I think we can drop this patch, otherwise use it, agree?

No problem.

Note this patch is also based on the assumption that there's only one such
device, but I couldn't verify it.

-- 
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND