Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 05:58:42PM CEST, snel...@pensando.io wrote:
>On 9/2/20 11:01 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 09:57:17PM CEST, snel...@pensando.io wrote:
>> > Add support for firmware update through the devlink interface.
>> > This update copies the firmware object into the device, asks
>> > the current firmware to install it, then asks the firmware to
>> > set the device to use the new firmware on the next boot-up.
>> >
>> > The install and activate steps are launched as asynchronous
>> > requests, which are then followed up with status requests
>> > commands. These status request commands will be answered with
>> > an EAGAIN return value and will try again until the request
>> > has completed or reached the timeout specified.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <snel...@pensando.io>
>[...]
>> > +
>> > + netdev_info(netdev, "Installing firmware %s\n", fw_name);
>> You don't need this dmesg messagel.
>>
>>
>> > +
>> > + dl = priv_to_devlink(ionic);
>> > + devlink_flash_update_begin_notify(dl);
>> > + devlink_flash_update_status_notify(dl, "Preparing to flash", NULL, 0,
>> > 0);
>> > +
>[...]
>> > + if (err) {
>> > + netdev_err(netdev,
>> > + "download failed offset 0x%x addr 0x%lx len
>> > 0x%x\n",
>> > + offset, offsetof(union ionic_dev_cmd_regs,
>> > data),
>> > + copy_sz);
>> And this one.
>>
>>
>> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Segment download failed");
>> > + goto err_out;
>> > + }
>[...]
>> > + devlink_flash_update_status_notify(dl, "Activating", NULL, 2, 2);
>> > +
>> > + netdev_info(netdev, "Firmware update completed\n");
>> And this one.
>>
>>
>> > +
>> > +err_out:
>> > + if (err)
>> > + devlink_flash_update_status_notify(dl, "Flash failed", NULL, 0,
>> > 0);
>> > + release_firmware(fw);
>> > + devlink_flash_update_end_notify(dl);
>> > + return err;
>> > +}
>> >
>
>True, they aren't "needed" for operational purposes, but they are rather
>useful when inspecting a system after getting a report of bad behavior, and
I don't think it is nice to pollute dmesg with any arbitrary driver-specific
messages.
>since this should be seldom performed there should be no risk of filling the
>log. As far as I can tell, the devlink messages are only seen at the time
>the flash is performed as output from the flash command, or from a devlink
>monitor if someone started it before the flash operation. Is there any other
>place that can be inspected later that will indicate someone was fussing with
>the firmware?
Not really, no. But perhaps we can have a counter for that. Similar to
what Jakub suggested for reload.
