Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] bnxt: Create an auxiliary device for fwctl_bnxt

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 01:49:12PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 02:03:56AM +0100, saeed@kernel.org wrote:
> >On 12 Feb 15:22, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:36:37AM -0800, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
> >> > On 2/10/2025 11:55 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 05:04:23PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >> > > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:16:47 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> > > > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:51:11PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > But if you agree the netdev doesn't need it seems like a fairly
> >> > > > > > straightforward way to unblock your progress.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I'm trying to understand what you are suggesting here.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > We have many scenarios where mlx5_core spawns all kinds of different
> >> > > > > devices, including recovery cases where there is no networking at all
> >> > > > > and only fwctl. So we can't just discard the aux dev or mlx5_core
> >> > > > > triggered setup without breaking scenarios.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > However, you seem to be suggesting that netdev-only configurations (ie
> >> > > > > netdev loaded but no rdma loaded) should disable fwctl. Is that the
> >> > > > > case? All else would remain the same. It is very ugly but I could see
> >> > > > > a technical path to do it, and would consider it if that brings peace.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yes, when RDMA driver is not loaded there should be no access to fwctl.
> >> > >
> >> > > There are users mentioned in cover letter, which need FWCTL without RDMA.
> >> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/0-v4-0cf4ec3b8143+4995-fwctl_jgg@nvidia.com/
> >> > >
> >> > > I want to suggest something different. What about to move all XXX_core
> >> > > logic (mlx5_core, bnxt_core, e.t.c.) from netdev to some other dedicated
> >> > > place?
> >> > >
> >> > > There is no technical need to have PCI/FW logic inside networking stack.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks
> >> > 
> >> > Our pds_core device fits this description as well: it is not an ethernet PCI
> >> > device, but helps manage the FW/HW for Eth and other things that are
> >> > separate PCI functions.  We ended up in the netdev arena because we first
> >> > went in as a support for vDPA VFs.
> >> > 
> >> > Should these 'core' devices live in linux-pci land?  Is it possible that
> >> > some 'core' things might be platform devices rather than PCI?
> >> 
> >> IMHO, linux-pci was right place before FWCTL and auxbus arrived, but now
> >> these core drivers can be placed in drivers/fwctl instead. It will be natural
> >+1
> >
> >Fwctl subsystem is perfect for shared modules that need to initialize the
> >pci device to a minimal state where fwctl uAPIs are enabled for debug and
> >bare metal device configs while aux sunsystem can carry out the
> >spawning of other subsystems.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to call it drivers/core/ and have corectl or
> corefwctl ?

Before names, let's first agree that this is the right thing to do.
I'm fine with any proposed name.

Thanks

> 
> >
> >> place for them as they will be located near the UAPI which provides an access
> >> to them.
> >> 
> >> All other components will be auxbus devices in their respective
> >> subsystems (eth, RDMA ...).
> >> 
> >> Thanks
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > sln
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> 
> >
>