Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface

[Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>]

On 4/10/2024 10:35 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:12:18 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>> For these kind of unused drivers, I think it would be legit to
>>>> disallow any internal/external api changes. Just do that for some
>>>> normal driver, then benefit from the changes in the unused driver.
>>>
>>> Unused is a bit strong, and we didn't put netdevsim in a special
>>> directory. Let's see if more such drivers appear and if there
>>> are practical uses for the separation for scripts etc?
>>
>> The practical use I see that the reviewer would spot right away is
>> someone pushes a feature implemented in this unused driver only.
>> Say it would be a clear mark for a driver of lower category.
>> For the person doing API change it would be an indication that he
>> does not have that cautious to not to break anything in this driver.
>> The driver maintainer should be the one to deal with potential issues.
> 
> Hm, we currently group by vendor but the fact it's a private device
> is probably more important indeed. For example if Google submits
> a driver for a private device it may be confusing what's public
> cloud (which I think/hope GVE is) and what's fully private.
> 
> So we could categorize by the characteristic rather than vendor:
> 
> drivers/net/ethernet/${term}/fbnic/
> 
> I'm afraid it may be hard for us to agree on an accurate term, tho.
> "Unused" sounds.. odd, we don't keep unused code, "private"
> sounds like we granted someone special right not took some away,
> maybe "exclusive"? Or "besteffort"? Or "staging" :D  IDK.

Do we really need that categorization at the directory/filesystem level? 
cannot we just document it clearly in the Kconfig help text and under 
Documentation/networking/?
-- 
Florian