On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 04:46:24PM CEST, roopa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 04:35:10PM CEST, roopa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Steve Lin <steven.lin1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Adds a devlink command for getting & setting device configuration >>>>> parameters, and enumerates a bunch of those parameters as devlink >>>>> attributes. Also introduces an attribute that can be set by a >>>>> driver to indicate that the config change doesn't take effect >>>>> until the next restart (as in the case of the bnxt driver changes >>>>> in this patchset, for which all the configuration changes affect NVM >>>>> only, and aren't loaded until the next restart.) >>>>> >>>>> bnxt driver patches make use of these new devlink cmds/attributes. >>>>> >>>>> Steve Lin (3): >>>>> devlink: Add config parameter get/set operations >>>>> bnxt: Move generic devlink code to new file >>>>> bnxt: Add devlink support for config get/set >>>>> >>>> >>>>Is the goal here to move all ethtool operations to devlink (I saw some >>>>attrs related to speed etc). ?. >>>>We do need to move ethtool attrs to netlink and devlink is a good >>>>place (and of-course leave the current ethtool api around for backward >>>>compatibility). >>> >>> We need to make sure we are not moving things to devlink which don't >>> belong there. All options that use "netdev" as a handle should go into >>> rtnetlink instead. >>> >> >>Any reason you want to keep that restriction ?. >>FWIS, devlink is a driver api just like ethtool is. >>and ethtool needs to move to netlink soon...and It would be better to >>not put the rtnl_lock burden on ethtool driver operations. Instead of >>adding yet another driver api, extending devlink seems like a great >>fit to me. > > Hmm, the original purpose of devlink was to obtain iface for things that > could not use "netdev" as a handle. I try to stick with it as we already > have iface for things that could use "netdev" as a handle - rtnetlink. > > Not sure we want to go this way and add "netdev"-handle things into > devlink. Thoughts? > Only motivation for me is to keep all driver/hw api in a single place. and its high time ethtool moved to netlink. I would prefer it be out of rtnetlink if we have a choice. Moving some of the driver ops to rtnetlink and leaving the rest in devlink can be a mess for drivers in the long run. Maybe we can discuss this more at netdev2.2 ?
