From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764D9C433F5 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343714AbiD2WmO (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:42:14 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34444 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232481AbiD2WmK (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:42:10 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2106C848E for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9626FB835F5 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:38:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2756C385A7; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:38:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1651271927; bh=80ZFm4ptxxAtLBvRA26j6Ts1jm9UqI8AXLSqH5ihhD8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=DJVwUC2rPcPEdl2nSHLX+g9PAYjZNz2+vm08gy6KVGFrVUQwCOkKOuGWrZs/tHCSP jAiPDUYvTzNacZh1ItaOgRPOqJE72/udpDxfyt6pEkyNg5UDb3Asn9iye5whRdZxR9 i8iVlj6spXV5QVqKgZqKzEXk1GgpOzkSm2/tfRFbI77SUwaj2uLyelS7BkkISp4RtA qlJA3grR6tKDRPQDKLD6dHJnt0ZKEuplaApWjU/HSsU2AafLiyDHuh5EUjkwFFDXG1 CSIG8JtMvHYF453jzCTc+52wyYTL8Ygq4b2fRsBwbjkICtb10ZoZqKeAMzwD3PtV5u JyiHG3kp3vkgg== Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:38:45 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Jiri Pirko Cc: Ido Schimmel , Ido Schimmel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, pabeni@redhat.com, jiri@nvidia.com, petrm@nvidia.com, dsahern@gmail.com, andrew@lunn.ch, mlxsw@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/11] mlxsw: extend line card model by devices and info Message-ID: <20220429153845.5d833979@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20220425125218.7caa473f@kernel.org> <20220426054130.7d997821@kernel.org> <20220426075133.53562a2e@kernel.org> <20220427071447.69ec3e6f@kernel.org> <20220429114535.64794e94@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:29:16 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote: > >The main question to me is whether users will want to flash the entire > >device, or update line cards individually. > > I think it makes sense to update them individually. The versions are > also reported individually. Okay, but neither I want that, nor does it match what Ido described as the direction for mlxsw, quoting: The idea (implemented in the next patchset) is to let these devices expose their own "component name", which can then be plugged into the existing flash command: $ devlink lc show pci/0000:01:00.0 lc 8 pci/0000:01:00.0: lc 8 state active type 16x100G supported_types: 16x100G devices: device 0 flashable true component lc8_dev0 device 1 flashable false device 2 flashable false device 3 flashable false $ devlink dev flash pci/0000:01:00.0 file some_file.mfa2 component lc8_dev0 Your "devices" are _not_ individually flashable. It seems natural for single-board devices like a NIC or a line card to have a single flash with all the images burned together. > What's the benefit of not doing that. As already mentioned in my previous reply the user will likely have a database of all their networking assets, and having to break them up further than the physical piece of gear they order from the supplier is a pain. Plus the vendor will likely also prefer to ship a single validated image rather than a blob for every board component with FW. > Also, how would you name the "group" component. Sounds odd to me. To flash the whole device we skip the component. > >What's inside mellanox/fw-AGB-rel-19_2010_1312-022-EVB.mfa2? Doesn't > >sound like it's FW just for a single gearbox? Please answer questions. I already complained about this once in this thread.