On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 01:49:12PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 02:03:56AM +0100, saeed@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >On 12 Feb 15:22, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:36:37AM -0800, Nelson, Shannon wrote: > >> > On 2/10/2025 11:55 PM, Leon Romanovsky 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? > >> > > > >> > > There is no technical need to have PCI/FW logic inside networking stack. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks > >> > > >> > Our pds_core device fits this description as well: it is not an ethernet PCI > >> > device, but helps manage the FW/HW for Eth and other things that are > >> > separate PCI functions. We ended up in the netdev arena because we first > >> > went in as a support for vDPA VFs. > >> > > >> > Should these 'core' devices live in linux-pci land? Is it possible that > >> > some 'core' things might be platform devices rather than PCI? > >> > >> IMHO, linux-pci was right place before FWCTL and auxbus arrived, but now > >> these core drivers can be placed in drivers/fwctl instead. It will be natural > >+1 > > > >Fwctl subsystem is perfect for shared modules that need to initialize the > >pci device to a minimal state where fwctl uAPIs are enabled for debug and > >bare metal device configs while aux sunsystem can carry out the > >spawning of other subsystems. > > Wouldn't it be better to call it drivers/core/ and have corectl or > corefwctl ? Before names, let's first agree that this is the right thing to do. I'm fine with any proposed name. Thanks > > > > >> place for them as they will be located near the UAPI which provides an access > >> to them. > >> > >> All other components will be auxbus devices in their respective > >> subsystems (eth, RDMA ...). > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> > > >> > sln > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
