On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 2:55 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 05:04:23PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:16:47 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:51:11PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > > > But if you agree the netdev doesn't need it seems like a fairly > > > > straightforward way to unblock your progress. > > > > > > I'm trying to understand what you are suggesting here. > > > > > > We have many scenarios where mlx5_core spawns all kinds of different > > > devices, including recovery cases where there is no networking at all > > > and only fwctl. So we can't just discard the aux dev or mlx5_core > > > triggered setup without breaking scenarios. > > > > > > However, you seem to be suggesting that netdev-only configurations (ie > > > netdev loaded but no rdma loaded) should disable fwctl. Is that the > > > case? All else would remain the same. It is very ugly but I could see > > > a technical path to do it, and would consider it if that brings peace. > > > > Yes, when RDMA driver is not loaded there should be no access to fwctl. > > There are users mentioned in cover letter, which need FWCTL without RDMA. > https://lore.kernel.org/all/0-v4-0cf4ec3b8143+4995-fwctl_jgg@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > I want to suggest something different. What about to move all XXX_core > logic (mlx5_core, bnxt_core, e.t.c.) from netdev to some other dedicated > place? > I understand the logic in your statement, but I do not want to separate/split PCI driver from the NIC driver for bnxt-based devices. We can look at doing that for future generations of hardware, but splitting/switching drivers for existing hardware creates a poor user-experience for distro users.
