Re: [PATCH net v2 1/4] auxiliary: Support hexadecimal ids

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 10:57:09AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 11:07:05AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 07:02:24AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 09:55:59AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> > > > On 7/23/25 04:13, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:29:32AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> > > > >> On 7/20/25 04:17, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > >> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 01:12:08PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> > > > >> >> On 7/17/25 12:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> > <...>
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> >> Anyway, if you really think ids should be random or whatever, why not
> > > > >> >> just ida_alloc one in axiliary_device_init and ignore whatever's
> > > > >> >> provided? I'd say around half the auxiliary drivers just use 0 (or some
> > > > >> >> other constant), which is just as deterministic as using the device
> > > > >> >> address.
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> > I would say that auxiliary bus is not right fit for such devices. This
> > > > >> > bus was introduced for more complex devices, like the one who has their
> > > > >> > own ida_alloc logic.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> I'd say that around 2/3 of the auxiliary drivers that have non-constant
> > > > >> ids use ida_alloc solely for the auxiliary bus and for no other purpose.
> > > > >> I don't think that's the kind of complexity you're referring to.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> >> Another third use ida_alloc (or xa_alloc) so all that could be
> > > > >> >> removed.
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> > These ID numbers need to be per-device.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Why? They are arbitrary with no semantic meaning, right?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, officially there is no meaning, and this is how we would like to
> > > > > keep it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Right now, they are very correlated with with their respective PCI function number.
> > > > > Is it important? No, however it doesn't mean that we should proactively harm user
> > > > > experience just because we can do it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [leonro@c ~]$ l /sys/bus/auxiliary/devices/
> > > > > ,,,
> > > > > rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jul 21 15:25 mlx5_core.rdma.0 -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:02.7/0000:0
> > > > > 8:00.0/mlx5_core.rdma.0
> > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jul 21 15:25 mlx5_core.rdma.1 -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:02.7/0000:0
> > > > > 8:00.1/mlx5_core.rdma
> > > > 
> > > > Well, I would certainly like to have semantic meaning for ids. But apparently
> > > > that is only allowed if you can sneak it past the review process.
> > > 
> > > Do I need to dust off my "make all ids random" patch again and actually
> > > merge it just to prevent this from happening?
> > 
> > After weekend thoughts on it. IDs need to be removed from the driver
> > access. Let's make them global at least.
> 
> Great, no objection from me, want to send a patch we can queue up for
> 6.18-rc1?

Sean proposed the initial idea to move IDs to aux core. Let's wait for him
to see if he wants to do such patch. If not, I'll send.

Thanks