On 3/5/25 8:08 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 02:32:54PM +0100, jgg@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 04:42:03PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> I thought you were arguing that me opposing the addition was >>> "maintainer overreach". As in me telling other parts of the kernel >>> what is and isn't allowed. Do I not get a say what gets merged under >>> drivers/net/ now? >> >> The PCI core drivers are a shared resource jointly maintained by all >> the subsytems that use them. They are maintained by their respective >> maintainers. Saeed/etc in this case. >> >> It would be inappropriate for your preferences to supersede Saeed's >> when he is a maintainer of the mlx5_core driver and fwctl. Please try >> and get Saeed on board with your plan. >> >> If the placement under drivers/net makes this confusing then we can >> certainly change the directory names. > > According to how mlx5 driver is structured, and the rest of the advanced > drivers in the same area are becoming as well, it would make sense to me > to have mlx5 core in separate core directory, maintained directly by driver > maintainer: > drivers/core/mlx5/ > then each of the protocol auxiliary device lands in appropriate > subsystem directory. +1 This is how I have structured our drivers -- core driver for owning the PCI device and hosting the APIs to communicate with hardware, an aux bus and then smaller subsystem focused drivers for the aux devices that make the device usable from different contexts. I think we are ready to start upstreaming, but I am waiting to see how this falls out - to see if our core driver can land in a non-subsystem specific location (e.g., drivers/core) or if it needs to go with fwctl as a generic location.
