Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] misc: mlx5ctl: Add mlx5ctl misc driver

Saeed Mahameed
2023-11-28T19:31:54Z

On 28 Nov 08:44, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:24:13 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> You said you already rejected it at the very start of this discussion
>> and linked to the video recording of the rejection discussion:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231019165055.GT3952@nvidia.com/
>>
>> This session was specifically on the 600 FW configuration parameters
>> that mlx5 has. This is something that is done today on non-secure boot
>> systems with direct PCI access on sysfs and would be absorbed into
>> this driver on secure-boot systems. Ie nothing really changes from the
>> broader ecosystem perspective.
>
>The question at LPC was about making devlink params completely
>transparent to the kernel. Basically added directly from FW.
>That what I was not happy about.
>
>You can add as many params at the driver level as you want.
>In fact I asked Saeed repeatedly to start posting all those
>params instead of complaining.
>

We posted many params over the years the you shot down on the spot,
do you really expect me to implement 600 of those knowing that you will
nack 80% of them asking to have common knobs for all vendors, and you know
that is impossible.
you nack patches then ask for a porpossal, we came up with many proposal
and discussed them face to face on multiple occasions, LPC/netconf etc,
then you ask for patches, then you nack again, we are just going in circles
here..

>> I second Dave's question - if you do not like mlx5ctl, then what is
>> your vision to solve all these user problems?
>
>Let the users complain about the user problems. Also something
>I repeatedly told Saeed. His response was something along the lines
>of users are secret, they can't post on the list, blah, blah.
>

I never said it is a secret, but I can't publicly reveal who my customers
are and what they want, you know very well who asked for the high
frequency counter sampling.. So we came up with a very clear solution,
that has nothing to do with netdev, since for that particular use-case it
is not netdev specific, and netdev stack isn't even present.

>You know one user who is participating in this thread?
>*ME*
>While the lot of you work for vendors.

And how *YOU* expect the vendors to debug *YOUR* issues, if you don't
allow them to access their HW?

Asking all vendors to use *YOUR* "devlink generic_dev generic_knob" is an
insult to all vendors, how about you provide the ASIC design and RTLs
to all vendors and we just manufacture it for you..