On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 05:19:15 +0000 Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 6:14 AM
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:03:50 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > +static ssize_t sfnum_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute
> > > +*attr, char *buf) {
> > > + struct auxiliary_device *adev = container_of(dev, struct
> > auxiliary_device, dev);
> > > + struct mlx5_sf_dev *sf_dev = container_of(adev, struct mlx5_sf_dev,
> > > +adev);
> > > +
> > > + return scnprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%u\n", sf_dev->sfnum); } static
> > > +DEVICE_ATTR_RO(sfnum);
> > > +
> > > +static struct attribute *sf_device_attrs[] = {
> > > + &dev_attr_sfnum.attr,
> > > + NULL,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct attribute_group sf_attr_group = {
> > > + .attrs = sf_device_attrs,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct attribute_group *sf_attr_groups[2] = {
> > > + &sf_attr_group,
> > > + NULL
> > > +};
> >
> > Why the sysfs attribute? Devlink should be able to report device name so
> > there's no need for a tie in from the other end.
> There isn't a need to enforce a devlink instance creation either,
You mean there isn't a need for the SF to be spawned by devlink?
> those mlx5 driver does it.
Really, no idea what you're trying to say. Read your emails before
you send them.
> systemd/udev looks after the sysfs attributes, so its parent device, similar to how phys_port_name etc looked for representor side.
