Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:57:27PM CET, mkube...@suse.cz wrote: >On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:35:08AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >- some features provided by ethtool would rather belong to devlink (and >> > some are already superseded by devlink); however, only few drivers >> > provide devlink interface at the moment and as recent discussion on >> > flashing revealed, we cannot rely on devlink's presence >> >> Could you explain why please? > >What I mean is the problem discussed under Jakub's devlink flash >patchset: that he couldn't implement only the devlink callback in nfp >and rely on the generic fallback to devlink because it wouldn't work if >devlink is built as a module.
So let's fix that. > >But I think this should be addressed. If we agree that flashing (and >other features provided by ethtool at the moment) rather belongs to >devlink (which nobody seems to oppose), we should rather try to make it >possible for drivers to provide only the devlink callback and gradually >move all in-tree drivers to doing so. (And one day, remove it from >ethtool_ops.) It doesn't seem to make much sense to have devlink as >a module in such scenario. Agreed. > >Michal
