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

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

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 04:26:24PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/18/2023 10:10 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> It would be more disruptive to change the name of the driver. We can update
> the pci device table, module description and possibly driver version when we
> are ready to make this a standard driver.
> So we would prefer not changing the driver name.

Kconfig entry and description too?

-- 
MST