On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:26:50 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote: > The devlink core recently gained support for checking whether the driver > supports a flash_update parameter, via `supported_flash_update_params`. > However, parameters are specified as function arguments. Adding a new > parameter still requires modifying the signature of the .flash_update > callback in all drivers. > > Convert the .flash_update function to take a new `struct > devlink_flash_update_params` instead. By using this structure, and the > `supported_flash_update_params` bit field, a new parameter to > flash_update can be added without requiring modification to existing > drivers. > > As before, all parameters except file_name will require driver opt-in. > Because file_name is a necessary field to for the flash_update to make > sense, no "SUPPORTED" bitflag is provided and it is always considered > valid. All future additional parameters will require a new bit in the > supported_flash_update_params bitfield.
I keep thinking we should also make the core do the request_firmware_direct(). What else is the driver gonna do with the file name.. But I don't want to drag your series out so: Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org>
