On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 01:39:16PM +0530, Selvin Xavier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 9:01 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 04:10:33PM +0530, Selvin Xavier wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:10 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 07:45:35AM -0800, Selvin Xavier wrote: > > > > > Implements routines to set and get different settings of > > > > > the congestion control. This will enable the users to modify > > > > > the settings according to their network. > > > > > > > > Should something like this be in debugfs though? > > > Since these are Broadcom specific parameters, i thought its better to > > > be under debugfs. Also I took the reference of a similar > > > implementation in mlx5. > > > > debugfs is disabled in a lot of deployments, it is a big part of why > > we are doing fwctl. If you know it works for you cases, debugfs is > > pretty open ended.. > The main use case for this debugfs support is for evaluation customers and > the tuning for their network. So debugfs should be okay. In my experience it makes no difference, if the customer is using secure boot then they are always using secure boot expect in small lab systems perhaps. Are you certain this is useful not just "should be okay" ? Jason
