Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:24:13 -0400 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] misc: mlx5ctl: Add mlx5ctl misc driver |
| |
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:53:21AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > You said no to the devlink parameters as a way to tune an ASIC. > > What? When?
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 discussion starts at time index 22:11.
Dave (IIRC? sorry) is talking about unique things and suggesting devlink. Many people in the audiance seem to support this idea
27:00 -> 28:00 you repeated this thread's argument about said NO "occasionally you are allowed to use [devlink parameters] them"
At 29 you said just keep it all out of tree.
Oh, I chimed in around 30:00 saying it is not the kernel maintainers job to force standardization. This is a user problem.
31:25 you said again "nothing"
31:30 S390 teams would like this and pushed back against "keep it all out of tree" describing the situation as a "deadlock".
33:00 you said need two implementors for device specific parameters, which misses the point of the discussion, IMHO.
And this was at the Dublin LPC, so over a year ago.
I second Dave's question - if you do not like mlx5ctl, then what is your vision to solve all these user problems?
Jason
| |