Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 01:30:21PM +0200, jedrzej.jagiel...@intel.com wrote:
>Currently when adding devlink port it is prohibited to let
>a driver name an interface on its own. In some scenarios
>it would not be preferable to provide such limitation.
>
>Remove triggering the warning when ndo_get_phys_port_name() is
>implemented for driver which interface is about to get a devlink
>port on.
What's the reason for this? If you are missing some formatting, you
should add it to devlink.
Please don't to this.
>
>Suggested-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kits...@intel.com>
>Signed-off-by: Jedrzej Jagielski <jedrzej.jagiel...@intel.com>
>---
> net/devlink/port.c | 17 -----------------
> 1 file changed, 17 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/devlink/port.c b/net/devlink/port.c
>index 939081a0e615..f885c8e73307 100644
>--- a/net/devlink/port.c
>+++ b/net/devlink/port.c
>@@ -1161,23 +1161,6 @@ static void devlink_port_type_netdev_checks(struct
>devlink_port *devlink_port,
> {
> const struct net_device_ops *ops = netdev->netdev_ops;
>
>- /* If driver registers devlink port, it should set devlink port
>- * attributes accordingly so the compat functions are called
>- * and the original ops are not used.
>- */
>- if (ops->ndo_get_phys_port_name) {
>- /* Some drivers use the same set of ndos for netdevs
>- * that have devlink_port registered and also for
>- * those who don't. Make sure that ndo_get_phys_port_name
>- * returns -EOPNOTSUPP here in case it is defined.
>- * Warn if not.
>- */
>- char name[IFNAMSIZ];
>- int err;
>-
>- err = ops->ndo_get_phys_port_name(netdev, name, sizeof(name));
>- WARN_ON(err != -EOPNOTSUPP);
>- }
> if (ops->ndo_get_port_parent_id) {
> /* Some drivers use the same set of ndos for netdevs
> * that have devlink_port registered and also for
>--
>2.31.1
>
