Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] ath10k: use new module_firmware_crashed()

From: Luis Chamberlain <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 01:05:30 +0000

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