On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:43:28AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 02:40:45PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > Isn't this even generic for any sort of SR-IOV? Wouldn't you need the > > same sort of operation for a GPU, or anything with a pool of resources > > which can be mapped to VFs? > > We've been calling this device profiling in the vfio discussions, > generally yes the general idea of profiling is common, but the actual > detail of the profile is very device specific. This is your poster child for fwctl. You are trying to convince us it is a way to configure things which are very vendor specific. Yet, as you point out, the idea of profiling is common. So why start here? It seems an odd choice. So i would of expected the messaging to be clearer. You the vendors agree there is no commonality, so explain that. Take three different vendors cards and list all the parameters which are needed for profiling with these cards. Really show that there is no commonality. And maybe take it a step further. Get these vendors to work together to produce three patchset implementing device profiling, so we can see there cannot be code sharing. Then you might have a convincing poster child for fwctl. Given how contentious fwctl is, i would say vendors need to work together to show there is nothing in common, at least to start with. Andrew
