Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 5/8] sfc: add devlink port support for ef100

["Lucero Palau, Alejandro" <alejandro.lucero-palau@amd.com>]

On 2/6/23 14:02, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 02/02/2023 11:14, alejandro.lucero-palau@amd.com wrote:
>> From: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero-palau@amd.com>
>>
>> Using the data when enumerating mports, create devlink ports just before
>> netdevs are registered and remove those devlink ports after netdev has
>> been unregistered.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero-palau@amd.com>
> ...
>> @@ -297,6 +298,7 @@ int efx_ef100_vfrep_create(struct efx_nic *efx, unsigned int i)
>>   			i, rc);
>>   		goto fail1;
>>   	}
>> +	ef100_rep_set_devlink_port(efv);
>>   	rc = register_netdev(efv->net_dev);
>>   	if (rc) {
>>   		pci_err(efx->pci_dev,
>> @@ -308,6 +310,7 @@ int efx_ef100_vfrep_create(struct efx_nic *efx, unsigned int i)
>>   		efv->net_dev->name);
>>   	return 0;
>>   fail2:
>> +	ef100_rep_unset_devlink_port(efv);
>>   	efx_ef100_deconfigure_rep(efv);
>>   fail1:
>>   	efx_ef100_rep_destroy_netdev(efv);
>> @@ -323,6 +326,7 @@ void efx_ef100_vfrep_destroy(struct efx_nic *efx, struct efx_rep *efv)
>>   		return;
>>   	netif_dbg(efx, drv, rep_dev, "Removing VF representor\n");
>>   	unregister_netdev(rep_dev);
>> +	ef100_rep_unset_devlink_port(efv);
>>   	efx_ef100_deconfigure_rep(efv);
>>   	efx_ef100_rep_destroy_netdev(efv);
>>   }
> Would it make sense to move these calls into
>   efx_ef100_[de]configure_rep()?  It's responsible for other
>   MAE/m-port related stuff (and is also common with remote reps
>   when they arrive).


Uhmm, not sure about this.

I would say configure/deconfigure reps is more driver's internal and 
those devlink related calls are about the driver using an external API. 
Indeed due to this relationship with register/unregister_netdev, I think 
it is more visible where they are at the moment.