On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:20:01 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote: > >> Officially we test only 3 GA FWs back. The fact that mlx5 is a generic CX > >> driver makes it really hard to test all the possible combinations, so we > >> need to be strict with how back we want to officially support and test old > >> generations. > > > >Would you be able to pull the datapoints for what 3 GA FWs means > >in case of CX4? Release number and date when it was released? > > https://network.nvidia.com/files/related-docs/eol/LCR-000821.pdf > > Since CX4 was EOL last year, it is going to be hard to find this info but > let me check my email archive.. > > 12.28.2006 27-Sep-20 - recommended version > 12.26.xxxx 12-Dec-2019 > 12.24.1000 2-Dec-18 That's basically 3 years of support. Seems fairly reasonable. > >> Upgrade FW when possible, it is always easier than upgrading the kernel. > >> Anyways this was a very rare FW/Arch bug, We should've exposed an > >> explicit cap for this new type of PF when we had the chance, now it's too > >> late since a proper fix will require FW and Driver upgrades and breaking > >> the current solution we have over other OSes as well. > >> > >> Yes I can craft an if condition to explicitly check for chip id and FW > >> version for this corner case, which has no precedence in mlx5, but I prefer > >> to ask to upgrade FW first, and if that's an acceptable solution, I would > >> like to keep the mlx5 clean and device agnostic as much as possible. > > > >IMO you either need a fully fleshed out FW update story, with advanced > >warnings for a few releases, distributing the FW via linux-firmware or > >fwupdmgr or such. Or deal with the corner cases in the driver :( > > Completely agree, I will start an internal discussion .. > > >We can get Paul to update, sure, but if he noticed so quickly the > >question remains how many people out in the wild will get affected > >and not know what the cause is? > > Right, I will make sure this will be addressed, will let you know how we > will handle this, will try to post a patch early next cycle, but i will > need to work with Arch and release managers for this, so it will take a > couple of weeks to formalize a proper solution. What do we do now, tho? If the main side effect of a revert is that users of a newfangled device with an order of magnitude lower deployment continue to see a warning/error in the logs - I'm leaning towards applying it :(
