[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc/tm: update support for pf only

[Dumitrescu, Cristian]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:35 PM
> To: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.varghese at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>;
> Byrne, Stephen1 <stephen1.byrne at intel.com>; Mcnamara, John
> <john.mcnamara at intel.com>; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc/tm: update support for pf only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:34:51 +0530
> > From: Vipin Varghese <vipin.varghese at intel.com>
> > To: dev at dpdk.org, cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com
> > CC: stephen1.byrne at intel.com, john.mcnamara at intel.com,
> >  declan.doherty at intel.com, Vipin Varghese <vipin.varghese at intel.com>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc/tm: update support for pf only
> > X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1
> >
> >
> > Documentation is updated to highlight the support for DPDK ethernet
> > interface for Traffic Manager is currently limited to PF only.
> 
> Why limit the specification to only PF devices? If a specific HW can
> support only PF devices, it can register tm ops only to PF devices.
> There are Hardwars which can support TM on VF as well, off course HW
> capabilities may be different, It can expressed with exiting TM capabilities
> structures.

NAK, Agree with Jerin.

The API is agnostic of the nature of ethdev port. The API is the same, whether it is called for a PF port or for a VF port.