Re: [PATCH net-next 07/14] devlink: Implement port params registration

[Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>]

On 2/28/25 13:28, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 12:58:38PM +0100, przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com wrote:
>> On 2/28/25 03:12, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>>> From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> Port params infrastructure is incomplete and needs a bit of plumbing to
>>> support port params commands from netlink.
>>>
>>> Introduce port params registration API, very similar to current devlink
>>> params API, add the params xarray to devlink_port structure and
>>> decouple devlink params registration routines from the devlink
>>> structure.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>    include/net/devlink.h |  14 ++++
>>>    net/devlink/param.c   | 150 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>    net/devlink/port.c    |   3 +
>>>    3 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>> For me devlink and devlink-port should be really the same, to the point
>> that the only difference is `bool is_port` flag inside of the
>> struct devlink. Then you could put special logic if really desired (to
>> exclude something for port).
> 
> Why? Why other devlink objects shouldn't be the same as well. Then we
> can have one union. Does not make sense to me. The only think dev and
> port is sharing would be params. What else? Totally different beast.

Instead of focusing on differences try to find similarities.

health reporters per port and "toplevel",
just by grepping:
devlink_nl_sb_pool_fill()
devlink_nl_sb_port_pool_fill(),

devlink_region_create()
devlink_port_region_create()

and there is no reason to assume that someone will not want to
extend ports to have devlink resources or other thing