On 17 Apr 08:38, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 21:40:35 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>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 :(
I tend to agree with you but let me check with the FW architect what he has
to offer, either we provide a FW version check or another more accurate
FW cap test that could solve the issue for everyone. If I don't come up with
a solution by next Wednesday I will repost your revert in my next net PR
on Wednesday. You can mark it awaiting-upstream for now, if that works for
you.
OK, sounds good.
So I checked with Arch and we agreed that the only devices that need to
expose this management PF are Bluefield chips, which have dedicated device
IDs, and newer than the affected FW, so we can fix this by making the check
more strict by testing device IDs as well.
I will provide a patch by tomorrow, will let Paul test it first.
