[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6e5fd327-d2ba-1b8d-44ce-fa975c73bffb@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 19:30:09 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 13/22] ethtool: provide driver/device
information in GET_INFO request
On 3/27/2019 3:25 PM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:14:11PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 06:08:33PM CET, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:
>>> +
>>> +Kernel response contents:
>>> +
>>> + ETHA_INFO_DEV (nested) device identification
>>> + ETHA_INFO_DRVINFO (nested) driver information
>>> + ETHA_DRVINFO_DRIVER (string) driver name
>>> + ETHA_DRVINFO_FWVERSION (string) firmware version
>>> + ETHA_DRVINFO_BUSINFO (string) device bus address
>>> + ETHA_DRVINFO_EROM_VER (string) expansion ROM version
>>
>> These are already very nicely supported in devlink. No need to duplicate
>> here.
>
> They are supported by devlink as an interface. But devlink itself is
> only supported by few NIC drivers at the moment:
>
> mike@...corn:~/work/git/net-next> grep -r devlink_ops drivers/net/
You might want to include net/ in your list too.
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c:static const struct devlink_ops mlx4_devlink_ops = {
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c: devlink = devlink_alloc(&mlx4_devlink_ops, sizeof(*priv));
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/core.c:static const struct devlink_ops mlxsw_devlink_ops = {
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/core.c: devlink = devlink_alloc(&mlxsw_devlink_ops, alloc_size);
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c:static const struct devlink_ops mlx5_devlink_ops = {
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c: devlink = devlink_alloc(&mlx5_devlink_ops, sizeof(*dev));
> drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_main.c:static const struct devlink_ops liquidio_devlink_ops = {
> drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_main.c: devlink = devlink_alloc(&liquidio_devlink_ops,
> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_devlink.c:static const struct devlink_ops bnxt_dl_ops = {
> drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_main.c: devlink = devlink_alloc(&nfp_devlink_ops, sizeof(*pf));
> drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_main.h:extern const struct devlink_ops nfp_devlink_ops;
> drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_devlink.c:const struct devlink_ops nfp_devlink_ops = {
> drivers/net/netdevsim/devlink.c:static const struct devlink_ops nsim_devlink_ops = {
> drivers/net/netdevsim/devlink.c: devlink = devlink_alloc(&nsim_devlink_ops, 0);
>
> That's 6 drivers from 4 vendors (if I don't count netdevsim). And I did
> not check if all of them do actually provide the information shown
> above. On the other hand:
>
> mike@...corn:~/work/git/net-next> egrep -r '\.get_drvinfo' drivers/net/ | wc -l
> 240
>
> Some of these 240 lines assign the same handler but not enough to make
> me optimistic about being able to implement "ethtool -i <dev>" using
> devlink interface in near future (say few months or one year).
>
> I'm all for implementing new features which are are related to physical
> device (ASIC) rather than network interface only in devlink (at the
> level of kernel-userspace interface). But for features already provided
> by ethtool (userspace utility) I can't help seeing the state of devlink
> support in NIC drivers as a serious blocker.
Can't we just interrogate devlink first if there is a devlink <->
net_device mapping and fallback to ethtool_ops::get_drvinfo if that did
not work? Maybe issue a (rate-limited) warning "use devlink instead".
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists