Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:53:47 +0100
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        John Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 13/22] ethtool: provide driver/device
 information in GET_INFO request
Message-ID: <20190328095347.GB26076@unicorn.suse.cz>
References: <cover.1553532199.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <b7aea4b2642b2fe6f12cfb843a03154f584f3bf6.1553532199.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <20190327201411.GH14297@nanopsycho>
 <20190327222554.GV26076@unicorn.suse.cz>
 <20190328092126.GL14297@nanopsycho>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190328092126.GL14297@nanopsycho>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:21:26AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:25:54PM CET, mkubecek@suse.cz wrote:
> >
> >I'm all for implementing new features which are are related to physical
> >device (ASIC) rather than network interface only in devlink (at the
> >level of kernel-userspace interface). But for features already provided
> >by ethtool (userspace utility) I can't help seeing the state of devlink
> >support in NIC drivers as a serious blocker.
> 
> What I'm thinking about at for some time now would be en explicit
> default devlink and devlink_port registration for every netdev for
> drivers that does not support devlink themselves. I need to think about
> it more, but it seems doable. Then we can hang appropriate things there
> and make the ethtoolnl/devlink separation clear. I believe we need to do
> it.

That sounds great, such "generic devlink" implementation would be a way
around. Kernel could then emulate features which are not implemented by
an actual devlink handler (i.e. "generic devlink" is used or particular
handler is missing) by falling back to ethtool_ops handler so that
userspace could rely on devlink API for things like device information,
various dumps, flashing etc. without losing anything.

Michal