On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 05:43:25PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > 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? >
Devlink port to link with is introduced in the port representor part. Strange, but it fitted to my splitting. I can move activation/deactivation part also to this patchset (as there is no devlink port to call it on) if you want. > > > > >[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); > >> >> >+} > >> >> >+ > >> >> > >> >> [...]
