On 7/29/2020 4:16 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:49:05 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
>> The security revision is tied into the management firmware image and
>> would always be updated when an image is updated, but the minimum
>> revision is only updated on an explicit request req
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:49:05 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
> The security revision is tied into the management firmware image and
> would always be updated when an image is updated, but the minimum
> revision is only updated on an explicit request request.
Does it have to be updated during FW flashing
On 7/22/2020 9:52 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:30:05 + Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>> one by one and then omit the one(s) which is config (guessing which
>> one that is based on the name).
>>
>> Wouldn't this be quite inconvenient?
>
> I see it as a
On 7/28/2020 10:09 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:58:44 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
>> On 7/28/2020 4:19 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Yes. Documentation is very easy to ignore unfortunatelly. The driver
>>> developer has to be tight up by the core code and api, I believe.
>>
>> So
On 7/28/2020 10:09 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:58:44 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
>> On 7/28/2020 4:19 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Yes. Documentation is very easy to ignore unfortunatelly. The driver
>>> developer has to be tight up by the core code and api, I believe.
>>
>> So
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:58:44 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
> On 7/28/2020 4:19 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Yes. Documentation is very easy to ignore unfortunatelly. The driver
> > developer has to be tight up by the core code and api, I believe.
>
> So I'm not sure what the best proposal here is. We do h
On 7/28/2020 4:19 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Yes. Documentation is very easy to ignore unfortunatelly. The driver
> developer has to be tight up by the core code and api, I believe.
>
So I'm not sure what the best proposal here is. We do have a list of
generic components, but given that each piec
Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 08:13:12PM CEST, jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote:
>
>
>On 7/26/2020 12:16 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 05:30:05PM CEST, jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
-Original Message-
From: netdev-ow...@vger.kernel.org On
Visible in which sens
On 7/26/2020 12:16 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 05:30:05PM CEST, jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: netdev-ow...@vger.kernel.org On
>>> Visible in which sense? We don't show components anywhere if I'm not
>>> mistaken. They are current
On 7/26/2020 12:18 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 08:21:22PM CEST, jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/22/2020 9:52 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:30:05 + Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> So perhaps we can introduce something like "component mask", w
Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 08:21:22PM CEST, jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote:
>
>
>On 7/22/2020 9:52 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:30:05 + Keller, Jacob E wrote:
So perhaps we can introduce something like "component mask", which would
allow to flash only part of the comp
E ; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Tom
>> Herbert ; Jiri Pirko ; Jakub
>> Kicinski
>> ; Jonathan Corbet ; Michael Chan
>> ; Bin Luo ; Saeed
>> Mahameed ; Leon Romanovsky ;
>> Ido Schimmel ; Danielle Ratson
>>
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 6/6]
On 7/22/2020 9:52 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:30:05 + Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>>> So perhaps we can introduce something like "component mask", which would
>>> allow to flash only part of the component. That is basically what Jacob
>>> has, I would just like to have it w
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:30:05 + Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > >> >one by one and then omit the one(s) which is config (guessing which
> > >> >one that is based on the name).
> > >> >
> > >> >Wouldn't this be quite inconvenient?
> > >>
> > >> I see it as an extra knob that is actually somehow prov
Michael Chan
> ; Bin Luo ; Saeed
> Mahameed ; Leon Romanovsky ;
> Ido Schimmel ; Danielle Ratson
>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 6/6] devlink: add overwrite mode to flash
> update
>
> Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:04:06PM CEST, kubak...@wp.pl wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 J
Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:04:06PM CEST, kubak...@wp.pl wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:53:56 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:51:59PM CEST, kubak...@wp.pl wrote:
>> >On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:09:53 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> This looks odd. You have a single image yet you somehow d
On 7/21/2020 10:04 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:53:56 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:51:59PM CEST, kubak...@wp.pl wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:09:53 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
This looks odd. You have a single image yet you somehow divide it
>>>
On 7/21/2020 6:56 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 08:52:58PM CEST, jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/2020 8:51 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:09:53 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
This looks odd. You have a single image yet you somehow divide it
>>>
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:53:56 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:51:59PM CEST, kubak...@wp.pl wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:09:53 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> This looks odd. You have a single image yet you somehow divide it
> >> into "program" and "config" areas. We already have
Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 08:52:58PM CEST, jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote:
>
>
>On 7/20/2020 8:51 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:09:53 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> This looks odd. You have a single image yet you somehow divide it
>>> into "program" and "config" areas. We already have
Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:51:59PM CEST, kubak...@wp.pl wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:09:53 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> This looks odd. You have a single image yet you somehow divide it
>> into "program" and "config" areas. We already have infra in place to
>> take care of this. See DEVLINK_ATTR_FLASH
On 7/20/2020 8:51 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:09:53 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> This looks odd. You have a single image yet you somehow divide it
>> into "program" and "config" areas. We already have infra in place to
>> take care of this. See DEVLINK_ATTR_FLASH_UPDATE_COMP
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:09:53 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> This looks odd. You have a single image yet you somehow divide it
> into "program" and "config" areas. We already have infra in place to
> take care of this. See DEVLINK_ATTR_FLASH_UPDATE_COMPONENT.
> You should have 2 components:
> 1) "program
Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 08:35:41PM CEST, jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote:
>A flash image may contain settings or device identifying information.
>When performing a flash update, these settings and information may
>conflict with contents already in the flash. Devices may handle this
>conflict in multipl
24 matches
Mail list logo
