Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] nfp: devlink: allow flashing the device via devlink

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 03:59:05AM CET, f.fainelli@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>On 2/19/2019 4:49 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 10:19:42 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 04:44:29PM CET, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:15:14 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:  
>>>>>> static const struct ethtool_ops nfp_net_ethtool_ops = {    
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you use the compat fallback? I think you should.  
>>>>
>>>> You and Michal both asked the same so let me answer the first to ask :)
>>>> - if devlink is built as a module the fallback is not reachable.  
>>>
>>> So the fallback is not really good as you can't use it for real drivers
>>> anyway. Odd. Maybe we should compile devlink in without possibility to
>>> have it as module.
>> 
>> Ack, I'll make devlink a bool.
>
>Meh how about those poor and memory constrained embedded systems?
>Ideally ethtool should/could have been modular as well, but that ship
>has now sailed.
>
>> 
>> I need a little extra time, I forgot that nfp's flower offload still
>> doesn't register all ports (using your port flavour infrastructure).
>> 
>
>We have had similar issues with PHYLIB before where we wanted
>net/core/ethtool.c to be able to call into generic PHYLIB functions to
>obtain PHY statistics, an inline helper that de-references the PHY
>device's driver function pointers solved that (look for
>phy_ethtool_get_{strings,sset,stats}) while letting PHYLIB remain modular.
>
>devlink_compat_flash_update() is a bit big to be inlined, but why not?

Others compat functions are going to come.

>
>If we make sure we always provide a devlink_mutex and devlink_list that
>symbols such that this builds wheter CONFIG_DEVLINK=y|m then everything
>else can be determined at runtime whether devlink.ko is loaded or not.
>
>Does that make sense?
>-- 
>Florian