On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 13:35 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> It's intended to be a generic netlink channel for configuring devices.
>
> All the firmware-related interfaces have no dependencies on netdevs,
> in fact that's one of the reasons we moved to devlink - we don't want
> to hold rtnl lock just for talking to device firmware.
Sounds good :)
So I guess Luis just has to add some way in devlink to hook up devlink
health in a simple way to drivers, perhaps? I mean, many drivers won't
really want to use devlink for anything else, so I guess it should be as
simple as the API that Luis proposed ("firmware crashed for this struct
device"), if nothing more interesting is done with devlink?
Dunno. But anyway sounds like it should somehow integrate there rather
than the way this patchset proposed?
johannes
