On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 19:45:17 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 03:26:43PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > drivers that specifically opt into this feature and the driver now has > > > the opportunity to provide a proper match table that indicates what HW > > > it can properly support. vfio-pci continues to support everything. > > > > In doing so, this also breaks the new_id method for vfio-pci. > > Does it? How? The driver_override flag is per match entry not for the > entire device so new_id added things will work the same as before as > their new match entry's flags will be zero. Hmm, that might have been a testing issue; combining driverctl with manual new_id testing might have left a driver_override in place. > > Sorry, with so many userspace regressions, crippling the > > driver_override interface with an assumption of such a narrow focus, > > creating a vfio specific match flag, I don't see where this can go. > > Thanks, > > On the other hand it overcomes all the objections from the last go > round: how userspace figures out which driver to use with > driver_override and integrating the universal driver into the scheme. > > pci_stub could be delt with by marking it for driver_override like > vfio_pci. By marking it a "vfio driver override"? :-\ > But driverctl as a general tool working with any module is not really > addressable. > > Is the only issue the blocking of the arbitary binding? That is not a > critical peice of this, IIRC We can't break userspace, which means new_id and driver_override need to work as they do now. There are scads of driver binding scripts in the wild, for vfio-pci and other drivers. We can't assume such a narrow scope. Thanks, Alex
