Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2023 11:31:49 -0800 | From | Saeed Mahameed <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] misc: mlx5ctl: Add mlx5ctl misc driver |
| |
On 28 Nov 08:44, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:24:13 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> You said you already rejected it at the very start of this discussion >> and linked to the video recording of the rejection discussion: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231019165055.GT3952@nvidia.com/ >> >> This session was specifically on the 600 FW configuration parameters >> that mlx5 has. This is something that is done today on non-secure boot >> systems with direct PCI access on sysfs and would be absorbed into >> this driver on secure-boot systems. Ie nothing really changes from the >> broader ecosystem perspective. > >The question at LPC was about making devlink params completely >transparent to the kernel. Basically added directly from FW. >That what I was not happy about. > >You can add as many params at the driver level as you want. >In fact I asked Saeed repeatedly to start posting all those >params instead of complaining. >
We posted many params over the years the you shot down on the spot, do you really expect me to implement 600 of those knowing that you will nack 80% of them asking to have common knobs for all vendors, and you know that is impossible. you nack patches then ask for a porpossal, we came up with many proposal and discussed them face to face on multiple occasions, LPC/netconf etc, then you ask for patches, then you nack again, we are just going in circles here..
>> I second Dave's question - if you do not like mlx5ctl, then what is >> your vision to solve all these user problems? > >Let the users complain about the user problems. Also something >I repeatedly told Saeed. His response was something along the lines >of users are secret, they can't post on the list, blah, blah. >
I never said it is a secret, but I can't publicly reveal who my customers are and what they want, you know very well who asked for the high frequency counter sampling.. So we came up with a very clear solution, that has nothing to do with netdev, since for that particular use-case it is not netdev specific, and netdev stack isn't even present.
>You know one user who is participating in this thread? >*ME* >While the lot of you work for vendors.
And how *YOU* expect the vendors to debug *YOUR* issues, if you don't allow them to access their HW?
Asking all vendors to use *YOUR* "devlink generic_dev generic_knob" is an insult to all vendors, how about you provide the ASIC design and RTLs to all vendors and we just manufacture it for you..
| |