[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200520171655.08412ba5@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 17:16:55 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: devlink interface for asynchronous event/messages from
firmware?
On Wed, 20 May 2020 17:03:02 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
> Hi Jiri, Jakub,
>
> I've been asked to investigate using devlink as a mechanism for
> reporting asynchronous events/messages from firmware including
> diagnostic messages, etc.
>
> Essentially, the ice firmware can report various status or diagnostic
> messages which are useful for debugging internal behavior. We want to be
> able to get these messages (and relevant data associated with them) in a
> format beyond just "dump it to the dmesg buffer and recover it later".
>
> It seems like this would be an appropriate use of devlink. I thought
> maybe this would work with devlink health:
>
> i.e. we create a devlink health reporter, and then when firmware sends a
> message, we use devlink_health_report.
>
> But when I dug into this, it doesn't seem like a natural fit. The health
> reporters expect to see an "error" state, and don't seem to really fit
> the notion of "log a message from firmware" notion.
>
> One of the issues is that the health reporter only keeps one dump, when
> what we really want is a way to have a monitoring application get the
> dump and then store its contents.
>
> Thoughts on what might make sense for this? It feels like a stretch of
> the health interface...
>
> I mean basically what I am thinking of having is using the devlink_fmsg
> interface to just send a netlink message that then gets sent over the
> devlink monitor socket and gets dumped immediately.
Why does user space need a raw firmware interface in the first place?
Examples?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists