On Mon, 18 May 2020 22:41:48 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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?
Right, that'd be great. Simple API to register a devlink instance with
whatever number of reporters the device would need. I'm happy to help.
