On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:16:45PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > 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.
Care to show me what the diff stat for a non devlink driver would look like? Just keep in mind this taint is 1 line addition. Granted, if we can use SmPL grammar to automate addition of an initial framework to a driver that'd be great, but since the device addition is subsystem specific (device_add() and friends), I don't suspect this will be easily automated. Luis
