On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:36:50 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 9/28/2020 3:35 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 00:07:30 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:05:08PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > >>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 02:31:55PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 23:06:26 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote: > >>>>> Not all ports of a switch need to be used, particularly in embedded > >>>>> systems. Add a port flavour for ports which physically exist in the > >>>>> switch, but are not connected to the front panel etc, and so are > >>>>> unused. > >>>> > >>>> This is missing the explanation of why reporting such ports makes sense. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Because this is a core devlink patch, we're talking really generalistic > >>> here. > >> > >> Hi Vladimir > >> > >> I don't think Jakub is questioning the why. He just wants it in the > >> commit message. > > > > Ack, I think we need to clearly say when those should be exposed. > > Most ASICs will have disabled ports, and we don't expect NICs to > > suddenly start reporting ports for all PCI PFs they may have. > > > > Also I keep thinking that these ports and all their objects should > > be hidden under some switch from user space perspective because they > > are unlikely to be valuable to see for a normal user. Thoughts? > > Hidden in what sense? They are already hidden in that there is no > net_device object being created for them. Are you asking for adding > another option to say, devlink show like: > > devlink show -a > > which would also show the ports that are disabled during a dump?
Yup, exactly. Looks like ip uses -a for something I don't quite understand - but some switch along those lines. We already have -d for hiding less-relevant attributes. Do you think this is an overkill? I don't feel strongly.
