Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 04:46:23PM CEST, [email protected] wrote: >On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 03:02:49PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:48:53PM CEST, [email protected] >> wrote: >> >On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:20:25PM CEST, [email protected] >> >> wrote: >> >> >From: Piotr Raczynski <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> >+/** >> >> >+ * ice_allocate_sf - Allocate devlink and return SF structure pointer >> >> >+ * @dev: the device to allocate for >> >> >+ * >> >> >+ * Allocate a devlink instance for SF. >> >> >+ * >> >> >+ * Return: void pointer to allocated memory >> >> >+ */ >> >> >+struct ice_sf_priv *ice_allocate_sf(struct device *dev) >> >> >> >> This is devlink instance for SF auxdev. Please make sure it is properly >> >> linked with the devlink port instance using devl_port_fn_devlink_set() >> >> See mlx5 implementation for inspiration. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >I am going to do it in the last patchset. I know that it isn't the best >> >> Where? Either I'm blind or you don't do it. >> >> > >You told me to split few patches from first patchset [1]. We agree that >there will be too many patches for one submission, so I split it into >3: >- 1/3 devlink prework (already accepted) >- 2/3 base subfunction (this patchset) >- 3/3 port representor refactor to support subfunction (I am going to > include it there)
Sorry, but how is this relevant to my suggestion to use devl_port_fn_devlink_set() which you apparently don't? > >[1] >https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/ > >Thanks, >Michal > >> >option to split patchesets like that, but it was hard to do it differently. >> > >> >Thanks, >> >Michal >> > >> >> >+{ >> >> >+ return ice_devlink_alloc(dev, sizeof(struct ice_sf_priv), >> >> >+ &ice_sf_devlink_ops); >> >> >+} >> >> >+ >> >> >> >> [...]
