On Wed, 05 Aug 2020 12:35:01 +0100 Sean Mooney <smooney@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 12:53 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > > Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:33:38AM CEST, yan.y.zhao@xxxxxxxxx wrote: (...) > > > software_version: device driver's version. > > > in <major>.<minor>[.bugfix] scheme, where there is no > > > compatibility across major versions, minor versions have > > > forward compatibility (ex. 1-> 2 is ok, 2 -> 1 is not) and > > > bugfix version number indicates some degree of internal > > > improvement that is not visible to the user in terms of > > > features or compatibility, > > > > > > vendor specific attributes: each vendor may define different attributes > > > device id : device id of a physical devices or mdev's parent pci device. > > > it could be equal to pci id for pci devices > > > aggregator: used together with mdev_type. e.g. aggregator=2 together > > > with i915-GVTg_V5_4 means 2*1/4=1/2 of a gen9 Intel > > > graphics device. > > > remote_url: for a local NVMe VF, it may be configured with a remote > > > url of a remote storage and all data is stored in the > > > remote side specified by the remote url. > > > ... > just a minor not that i find ^ much more simmple to understand then > the current proposal with self and compatiable. > if i have well defiend attibute that i can parse and understand that allow > me to calulate the what is and is not compatible that is likely going to > more useful as you wont have to keep maintianing a list of other compatible > devices every time a new sku is released. > > in anycase thank for actully shareing ^ as it make it simpler to reson about what > you have previously proposed. So, what would be the most helpful format? A 'software_version' field that follows the conventions outlined above, and other (possibly optional) fields that have to match? (...) > > Thanks for the explanation, I'm still fuzzy about the details. > > Anyway, I suggest you to check "devlink dev info" command we have > > implemented for multiple drivers. > > is devlink exposed as a filesytem we can read with just open? > openstack will likely try to leverage libvirt to get this info but when we > cant its much simpler to read sysfs then it is to take a a depenency on a commandline > too and have to fork shell to execute it and parse the cli output. > pyroute2 which we use in some openstack poject has basic python binding for devlink but im not > sure how complete it is as i think its relitivly new addtion. if we need to take a dependcy > we will but that would be a drawback fo devlink not that that is a large one just something > to keep in mind. A devlinkfs, maybe? At least for reading information (IIUC, "devlink dev info" is only about information retrieval, right?)
