Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 08:21:22PM CEST, jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote: > > >On 7/22/2020 9:52 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:30:05 +0000 Keller, Jacob E wrote: >>>> So perhaps we can introduce something like "component mask", which would >>>> allow to flash only part of the component. That is basically what Jacob >>>> has, I would just like to have it well defined. >>> >>> So, we could make this selection a series of masked bits instead of a >>> single enumeration value. >> >> I'd still argue that components (as defined in devlink info) and config >> are pretty orthogonal. In my experience config is stored in its own >> section of the flash, and some of the knobs are in no obvious way >> associated with components (used by components). >> >> That said, if we rename the "component mask" to "update mask" that's >> fine with me. >> >> Then we'd have >> >> bit 0 - don't overwrite config >> bit 1 - don't overwrite identifiers >> >> ? >> >> Let's define a bit for "don't update program" when we actually need it. >> > > >Ok. And this can be later extended with additional bits with new >meanings should the need arise. > >Additionally, drivers can ensure that the valid combination of bits is >set. the drivers can reject requests for combinations that they do not >support.
Makes sense. > >I can make that change. > >My preference is that "0" for a bit means do not overwrite while "1" >means overwrite. This way, if/when additional bits are added, drivers >won't need to be updated to reject such requests. If we make "1" the "do >not overwrite" then we'd have a case where drivers must update to ensure >they reject requests which don't set the bit. 0 should be default and driver should bahave accordingly. > >Thanks, >Jake
