Re: [RFC net-next 0/4] devlink: Add boot-time defaults

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Sat, 9 May 2026 09:01:23 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Sat, May 09, 2026 at 02:52:13AM +0200, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
> >On Fri, 8 May 2026 20:07:44 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> >legacy vs switchdev only describes the eswitch configuration.
> >As a non-SR-IOV user I really don't want to see the extra representors
> >hanging around my systems, confusing all daemons. IIRC mlx5 had some
> >limitations around the uplink representor. Maybe that's the disconnect.
> >But for a real, fully featured switchdev eswitches having the
> >PHY and PF representors on boot, always, will not make sense.  
> 
> As "a non-SR-IOV user", what extra representors you talk about? When you
> have pfs only, you don't have anything extra. Just 1 netdev per-pf, one
> devlink port per-pf. What's extra about it? When you don't have VFs/SFs.
> Everyhing is the same:

Some devices have separate uplink ports and PF representors.
As I said, what you're proposing isn't going to work for all drivers.

> >> Well, as any other nv config, it persists across kernels/hosts.
> >> Think about it as "unbreak-my-not-legacy-device" bit.  
> >
> >For most devices the switchdev mode does not change anything
> >substantial about the device. It's purely a kernel / driver config. 
> >It changes what objects and default rules kernel / driver installs. 
> >So I don't get why it would make sense to flash into the device
> >nvmem a Linux SW stack specific config.  
> 
> I look at it from the perspective that from some CX generation,
> switchdev mode should be default. So that is a device-based decision.
> I believe as such it can optionally be permanenty configured (nv config)
> on older device. Why not?

Feels a bit arbitrary and won't cover all cases. The question should be
why you are nacking a more reasonable solution. Keeping Linux config in
Linux params.