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 17:34:39 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
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: <20190328163439.GP14297@nanopsycho>
References: <cover.1553532199.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <b7aea4b2642b2fe6f12cfb843a03154f584f3bf6.1553532199.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <20190327201411.GH14297@nanopsycho>
 <20190327222554.GV26076@unicorn.suse.cz>
 <20190328092126.GL14297@nanopsycho>
 <20190328095347.GB26076@unicorn.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190328095347.GB26076@unicorn.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:53:47AM CET, mkubecek@suse.cz wrote:
>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.

Yep. Plan to do that next week.

>
>Michal