On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 13:42:12 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 16:43:14 +0200 Kory Maincent wrote:

quoted

quoted

Sorry for not offering a clear alternative, but I'm not aware of any
precedent for treating devlink params as action triggers. devlink params
should be values that can be set and read, which is clearly not
the case here:    

Ok.
We could save the configuration for every config change and add a reset-conf
action to devlink reload uAPI? The drawback it that it will bring a bit of
latency (about 110ms) for every config change.

Or adding a new devlink uAPI like a devlink conf but maybe we don't have enough
cases to add such generic new uAPI.
Or get back to the first proposition to use sysfs. 

What do you think?  

If you are asking for my real preference, abstracting away whether it's
doable and justifiable amount of effort for you -- I'd explore using
flags in the ethtool header to control whether setting is written to
the flash.

PS. failing that the less uAPI the better. Tho, given that the whole
point here is giving user the ability to write the flash -- asking for
uAPI-light approach feels contradictory.

Taking a step back -- the "save to flash" is something that OEM FW
often supports. But for Linux-based control the "save to flash" should
really be equivalent to updating some user space config. When user
configures interfaces in OpenWRT we're not flashing them into the
device tree... Could you perhaps explain what makes updating the
in-flash config a high-priority requirement for PoE?