Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF driver

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 09:19:31AM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/11/2023 11:34 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 12:43:11PM -0700, Emil Tantilov wrote:
> > > This patch series introduces the Intel Infrastructure Data Path Function
> > > (IDPF) driver. It is used for both physical and virtual functions. Except
> > > for some of the device operations the rest of the functionality is the
> > > same for both PF and VF. IDPF uses virtchnl version2 opcodes and
> > > structures defined in the virtchnl2 header file which helps the driver
> > > to learn the capabilities and register offsets from the device
> > > Control Plane (CP) instead of assuming the default values.
> > 
> > So, is this for merge in the next cycle?  Should this be an RFC rather?
> > It seems unlikely that the IDPF specification will be finalized by that
> > time - how are you going to handle any specification changes?
> 
> Yes. we would like this driver to be merged in the next cycle(6.5).
> Based on the community feedback on v1 version of the driver, we removed all
> references to OASIS standard and at this time this is an intel vendor
> driver.
> 
> Links to v1 and v2 discussion threads
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230329140404.1647925-1-pavan.kumar.linga@intel.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230411011354.2619359-1-pavan.kumar.linga@intel.com/
> 
> The v1->v2 change log reflects this update.
> v1 --> v2: link [1]
>  * removed the OASIS reference in the commit message to make it clear
>    that this is an Intel vendor specific driver

Yes this makes sense.


> Any IDPF specification updates would be handled as part of the changes that
> would be required to make this a common standards driver.


So my question is, would it make sense to update Kconfig and module name
to be "ipu" or if you prefer "intel-idpf" to make it clear this is
currently an Intel vendor specific driver?  And then when you make it a
common standards driver rename it to idpf?  The point being to help make
sure users are not confused about whether they got a driver with
or without IDPF updates. It's not critical I guess but seems like a good
idea. WDYT?

-- 
MST