From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D289C33CA9 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 01:39:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF5422314 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 01:39:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732442AbgAMBj5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:39:57 -0500 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:9160 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727222AbgAMBj4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:39:56 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 302B3726976CD8B241FC; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:39:55 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.74.191.121) by DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:39:51 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] devlink region trigger support To: Alex Vesker , Jakub Kicinski CC: Jacob Keller , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "jiri@resnulli.us" References: <20200109193311.1352330-1-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <4d8fe881-8d36-06dd-667a-276a717a0d89@huawei.com> <1d00deb9-16fc-b2a5-f8f7-5bb8316dbac2@intel.com> <20200112124521.467fa06a@cakuba> From: Yunsheng Lin Message-ID: <421f78c2-7713-b931-779e-dfe675fe5f53@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:39:50 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.74.191.121] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 2020/1/13 5:18, Alex Vesker wrote: > On 1/12/2020 10:45 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 09:51:00 +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>>> regions can essentially be used to dump arbitrary addressable content. I >>>> think all of the above are great examples. >>>> >>>> I have a series of patches to update and convert the devlink >>>> documentation, and I do provide some further detail in the new >>>> devlink-region.rst file. >>>> >>>> Perhaps you could review that and provide suggestions on what would make >>>> sense to add there? >>> For the case of region for mlx4, I am not sure it worths the effort to >>> document it, because Jiri has mention that there was plan to convert mlx4 to >>> use "devlink health" api for the above case. >>> >>> Also, there is dpipe, health and region api: >>> For health and region, they seems similar to me, and the non-essential >>> difference is: >>> 1. health can be used used to dump content of tlv style, and can be triggered >>> by driver automatically or by user manually. >>> >>> 2. region can be used to dump binary content and can be triggered by driver >>> automatically only. >>> >>> It would be good to merged the above to the same api(perhaps merge the binary >>> content dumping of region api to health api), then we can resue the same dump >>> ops for both driver and user triggering case. >> I think there is a fundamental difference between health API and >> regions in the fact that health reporters allow for returning >> structured data from different sources which are associated with >> an event/error condition. That includes information read from the >> hardware or driver/software state. Region API (as Jake said) is good >> for dumping arbitrary addressable content, e.g. registers. I don't see >> much use for merging the two right now, FWIW... The point is that we are beginning to use health API for event/error condition, right? Do we use health API or regions API to dump a arbitrary addressable content when there is an event/error detected? Also we may need to dump both a arbitrary addressable content and the structured data when there is an event/error detected, the health API or regions API can not do both, right? It still seems it is a little confusing when deciding to use health or regions API. >> > Totally agree with Jakub, I think health and region are different and > each has its > usages as mentioned above. Using words such as recovery and health for > exposing > registers doesn't sound correct. There are future usages I can think of > for region if we > will add the trigger support as well as the live region read. health API already has "trigger support" now if region API is merged to health API. I am not sure I understand "live region" here, what is the usecase of live region? > > >