On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:15:49 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

quoted

It was implicit that a driver API callback addition for both types of features is not good.
Devlink port function params enables to achieve both generic and device specific features.
Shall we proceed with port function params? What do you think?

I already addressed this. I don't like devlink params. They muddy the
water between vendor specific gunk and bona fide Linux uAPI. Build a
normal dedicated API.

Well, that is indeed true. But on the other hand, what is the alternative
solution? There are still going to be things wich are generic and driver-
specific. Params or no params. Or do you say we need some new well
defined enum-based api for generic stuff and driver-speficic will just
go to params?

The latter is where my thinking is right now. I think devlink params
are attracting too much vendor attention, when they should really be
more of control for quirks.