On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:22:02 +0000 Luis Chamberlain wrote: > Indeed my issue with devlink is that it did not seem generic enough for > all devices which use firmware and for which firmware can crash. Support > should not have to be "add devlink support" + "now use this new hook", > but rather a very lighweight devlink_crash(device) call we can sprinkly > with only the device as a functional requirement.
We can provide a lightweight devlink_crash(device) which only generates the notification, without the need to register the health reporter or a devlink instance upfront. But then we loose the ability to control the recovery, count errors, etc. So I'd think that's not the direction we want to go in.
