From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
To: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>,
David Miller <davem@redhat.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jj@ultra.linux.cz>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>, Tim Hockin <thockin@sun.com>,
Eli Kupermann <eli.kupermann@intel.com>,
Chris Leech <christopher.leech@intel.com>,
Scott Feldman <scott.feldman@intel.com>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ethtool: Support for driver private ioctl's
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 08:50:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <df7773c4-8695-38dd-bedd-39b88f4aaec1@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cbd05f37-509b-118b-e681-0ccd0ebebd73@synopsys.com>
On 04/05/2018 03:47 AM, Jose Abreu wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to know your opinion regarding adding support for
> driver private ioctl's in ethtool.
>
> Background: Synopsys Ethernet IP's have a certain number of
> features which can be reconfigured at runtime. Giving you two
> examples: One of the most recent one is the safety features,
> which can be enabled/disabled and forced at runtime. Another one
> is a Flexible RX Parser which can route specific packets to
> specific RX DMA channels. Given that these are features specific
> to our IP's it would not be useful to add an uniform API for this
> because the users would only be one or two drivers ...
Parsing of packets and directing the matched packets to specific
queues/channels can be done through ethtool rxnfc API, tc/cls_flower as
well, so you should really check whether those APIs don't already allow
you to do what you want.
ethtool already supports a concept of private flags, not ioctl() though
which allows you to toggle boolean values for instance (or technically
up to how many bits a "flag" is used to represent) is that enough or do
you need to turn on/off the feature as well as pass configuration
parameters?
>
> This new feature would change the help usage for ethtool so that
> each driver private option would be shown, and then each driver
> specific file would have a structure with all the available
> options. Finally, each driver would have to handle the private
> IOCTL's.
>
> We already have this working locally and now I would like to know
> your opinion about upstreaming this ... Do you think this can be
> useful for anyone else? Or should we change direction to use, for
> example, debugfs/configfs?
In general, even if there is only one driver implementing a particular
feature, the approach chosen is to come up with an API that is as
generic as possible. Even if there is a single user of that API in tree,
having something that was thought to be generic is better than allowing
uncontrolled private ioctl() implementations.
--
Florian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-05 15:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-05 10:47 [RFC] ethtool: Support for driver private ioctl's Jose Abreu
2018-04-05 15:50 ` Florian Fainelli [this message]
2018-04-06 9:07 ` Michal Kubecek
2018-04-06 13:57 ` Jose Abreu
2018-04-06 13:51 ` Jose Abreu
2018-04-06 14:47 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-04-06 14:51 ` Jose Abreu
2018-04-07 19:58 ` Florian Fainelli
2018-04-24 9:37 ` Jose Abreu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=df7773c4-8695-38dd-bedd-39b88f4aaec1@gmail.com \
--to=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com \
--cc=Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com \
--cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
--cc=christopher.leech@intel.com \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=eli.kupermann@intel.com \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=jj@ultra.linux.cz \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=scott.feldman@intel.com \
--cc=thockin@sun.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox