> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 4:48 PM > To: Saleem, Shiraz <shiraz.saleem@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>; dledford@xxxxxxxxxx; > kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ertman, David M > <david.m.ertman@xxxxxxxxx>; Nguyen, Anthony L > <anthony.l.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx>; Ismail, Mustafa <mustafa.ismail@xxxxxxxxx>; > Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx>; jiri@xxxxxxxxxx; Samudrala, Sridhar > <sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx>; Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/22] RDMA/irdma: Register an auxiliary driver and > implement private channel OPs > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:39:53AM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/22] RDMA/irdma: Register an auxiliary driver and > > > implement private channel OPs > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 03:45:51PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:48:12PM -0600, Shiraz Saleem wrote: > > > > > From: Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Register irdma as an auxiliary driver which can attach to auxiliary > > > > > RDMA devices from Intel PCI netdev drivers i40e and ice. Implement > > > > > the private channel ops, add basic devlink support in the driver and > > > > > register net notifiers. > > > > > > > > Devlink part in "the RDMA client" is interesting thing. > > > > > > > > The idea behind auxiliary bus was that PCI logic will stay at one > > > > place and devlink considered as the tool to manage that. > > > > > > Yes, this doesn't seem right, I don't think these auxiliary bus objects should > have > > > devlink instances, or at least someone from devlink land should approve of > the > > > idea. > > > > > > > In our model, we have one auxdev (for RDMA) per PCI device function > > owned by netdev driver and one devlink instance per auxdev. Plus > > there is an Intel netdev driver for each HW generation. Moving the > > devlink logic to the PCI netdev driver would mean duplicating the > > same set of RDMA params in each Intel netdev driver. Additionally, > > plumbing RDMA specific params in the netdev driver sort of seems > > misplaced to me. > > That's because it is not supposed to be "the netdev driver" but the > shared physical PCI function driver, and devlink is a shared part of > the PCI function. Well, at least in Intel ice driver case, we have multiple PCI functions, and each function gets its own devlink (as opposed to a single devlink instance). There's no separation between the netdev driver and the PCI function driver today. > > > devlink is on a per 'struct device' object right? Should we be > > limiting ourselves in its usage to only the PCI driver and PCI dev? > > And not other devices like auxdev? > > The devlink should not be created on the aux device, devlink should be > created against PCI functions. > > It is important to follow establish convention here, otherwise it is a > user mess to know what to do > > Jason
