Re: [PATCH net-next 00/19] Mellanox, mlx5 sub function support

gregkh
2019-11-08T21:19:16Z

On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 05:05:45PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:34:35PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:12:53 -0400
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 11:12:38AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 15:40:22 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > > > The new intel driver has been having a very similar discussion about how to
> > > > > > model their 'multi function device' ie to bind RDMA and other drivers to a
> > > > > > shared PCI function, and I think that discussion settled on adding a new bus?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really these things are all very similar, it would be nice to have a clear
> > > > > > methodology on how to use the device core if a single PCI device is split by
> > > > > > software into multiple different functional units and attached to different
> > > > > > driver instances.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently there is alot of hacking in this area.. And a consistent scheme
> > > > > > might resolve the ugliness with the dma_ops wrappers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We already have the 'mfd' stuff to support splitting platform devices, maybe
> > > > > > we need to create a 'pci-mfd' to support splitting PCI devices?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not really clear how mfd and mdev relate, I always thought mdev was
> > > > > > strongly linked to vfio.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mdev at beginning was strongly linked to vfio, but as I mentioned
> > > > > above it is addressing more use case.
> > > > >
> > > > > I observed that discussion, but was not sure of extending mdev further.
> > > > >
> > > > > One way to do for Intel drivers to do is after series [9].
> > > > > Where PCI driver says, MDEV_CLASS_ID_I40_FOO
> > > > > RDMA driver mdev_register_driver(), matches on it and does the probe().
> > > >
> > > > Yup, FWIW to me the benefit of reusing mdevs for the Intel case vs
> > > > muddying the purpose of mdevs is not a clear trade off.
> > >
> > > IMHO, mdev has amdev_parent_ops structure clearly intended to link it
> > > to vfio, so using a mdev for something not related to vfio seems like
> > > a poor choice.
> >
> > Unless there's some opposition, I'm intended to queue this for v5.5:
> >
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg199613.html
> >
> > mdev has started out as tied to vfio, but at it's core, it's just a
> > device life cycle infrastructure with callbacks between bus drivers
> > and vendor devices. If virtio is on the wrong path with the above
> > series, please speak up. Thanks,
>
> Well, I think Greg just objected pretty strongly.

Yes I did.

I keep saying this again and again, and so did you here:

> IMHO it is wrong to turn mdev into some API multiplexor. That is what
> the driver core already does and AFAIK your bus type is supposed to
> represent your API contract to your drivers.

That is exactly right. Don't re-create the driver api interface at
another layer please.

thanks,

greg k-h