> Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/22] RDMA/irdma: Register an auxiliary driver and > implement private channel OPs > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 05:01:40PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote: > > > > > > On 1/25/2021 4:39 PM, 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. > > > > > > > I agree that plumbing these parameters at the PCI side in the devlink > > of the parent device is weird. They don't seem to be parameters that > > the parent driver cares about. > > It does, the PCI driver is not supposed to spawn any aux devices for RDMA at all > if RDMA is disabled. > > For an iWarp driver I would consider ENABLE_ROCE to really be a general > ENABLE_RDMA. Well the driver supports iWARP and RoCE for E810 device. Are you saying that this generic enable_roce devlink param really is an enable 'rdma' traffic or not param? > > Are you sure you need to implement this? What we are after is some mechanism for user to switch the protocols iWARP vs RoCE [default the device comes up as an iWARP dev]. The protocol info is really needed early-on in the RDMA driver.probe(). i.e. when the rdma admin queue is created. The same goes with the other param resource_limits_selector. It's a profile selector that a user can chose to different # of max QP, CQs, MRs etc. > > In any event, you just can't put the generic ENABLE_ROCE flag anyplace but the > PCI device for devlink, it breaks the expected user API established by mlx5 > > Jason
