On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 5:36 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:41:51AM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > > The current codes uses the sw_control path in set_baseline_state() when > > called from netdev_trig_activate() even if we're hw-controlled. This > > may result in errors when led_set_brightness() is called because we may > > not have set_brightness led ops (if hw doesn't support setting a LED > > to ON). > > Not having software on/off control of the LED is a problem. It breaks > the whole concept of offloading/accelerating. If we cannot control the > LED, there is nothing to accelerate. What do we do when the user > selects a configuration which is not supported by the hardware? The > API is not atomic, you cannot set multiple things at once. So the user > might be trying to get from one offloadable configuration to another > offloadable configuration, but needs to go via an configuration which > is not offloadable. Do we return -EOPNOTSUPP? > The point you raise with the non-atomic API is completely valid, however I think it's not directly related to this patch. Here it's about a validated hw-control path. So I think the patch is still valid. > Before we accept patches like this, we need to discuss the concept of > how we support LEDs which cannot be controlled in software. > RTL8168 LED control allows to switch between different hw triggers. I was under the assumption that this is not uncommon. In order to deal with the non-atomic issue we have to set trigger_data->mode to the resulting new mode, based on what the user set. Question is what we show to the user. If we show nothing, then he will expect the new mode to be active. If we show an error, then he may assume that his input had no effect. So we may have to show technically an OK, plus a message that his input has been stored, but is not supported by hw. > Andrew Heiner
