Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 06:17:07AM CEST, vasundhara-v.vo...@broadcom.com wrote: >On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 3:20 PM Jakub Kicinski ><jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:09:37 +0530, Vasundhara Volam wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:04 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:14:57 +0530, Vasundhara Volam wrote: >> > > > This patchset adds support for 4 generic and 1 driver-specific devlink >> > > > parameters. >> > > > >> > > > Also, this patchset adds support to return proper error code if >> > > > HWRM_NVM_GET/SET_VARIABLE commands return error code >> > > > HWRM_ERR_CODE_RESOURCE_ACCESS_DENIED. >> > > > >> > > > Vasundhara Volam (8): >> > > > devlink: Add generic parameter hw_tc_offload >> > > >> > > Much like Jiri, I can't help but wonder why do you need this? >> > >> > There is a request from our customer for a way to toggle tc_offload >> > feature in our adapter. >> >> Vasundhara, again, we don't need to know who asked you to do this, but >> _why_. What problem are you solving? What is the customer trying to >> achieve? >For Brand new big features like TC_offload, few customers are not willing >to enable it by default in the adapter(Firmware). This was a subjective >decision >to disable TC_offload by default in the adapter.
Again, why? Why it cannot be enabled in FW and just enabled/disabled by ethtool flag? Don't say that "customers want it" please... >> >> > > > devlink: Add generic parameter ignore_ari >> > > > devlink: Add generic parameter msix_vec_per_pf_max >> > > > devlink: Add generic parameter msix_vec_per_pf_min >> > > >> > > IMHO more structured API would be preferable if possible. The string >> > > keys won't scale if you want to set the parameters per PF, and >> > > creating more structured API for PCIe which is a relatively slow >> > > moving HW spec seems tractable. >> > >> > Sorry, could you please suggest an example? We will try to adapt. >> >> My thinking was that the same way devlink device has ports, it should >> have PCIe functions as objects which then have attributes. Instead of >> making everything a string-identified device attribute. But I'm not >> dead set on this if others don't think its a good idea. >Actually this parameters are for the port but the value given to this param >is applicable for individual PF. That's the reason I have added "per_pf" >string. >If you think this is not a good idea, I can move this params to >driver-specific.
