Re: [PATCH] octeontx2-nicvf: Add netdev interface support for SDP VF devices

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:51:24 +0530 Sunil Kovvuri wrote:

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:28 AM Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:44:10 +0530 Sunil Kovvuri wrote:  

quoted

What is the objection here ?
Is kernel netdev not supposed to be used with-in end-point ?  

Yes.  

If you don't mind can you please write these rules somewhere and push
to kernel documentation.
So that we are clear on what restrictions kernel netdev imposes.

Kernel develops by precedent. You're making a precedent with your
patches and have not bothered documenting it. In fact there isn't 
even a proper commit message.

quoted

quoted

If customers want to use upstream kernel with-in endpoint and not
proprietary SDK, why to impose restrictions.  

Because our APIs and interfaces have associated semantics. That's
the primary thing we care about upstream. You need to use or create
standard interfaces, not come up with your own thing and retrofit it
into one of the APIs. Not jam PTP configuration thru devlink params,
or use netdevs to talk to your FW because its convenient. Trust me,
you're not the first one to come up with this idea.

I see that you are just assuming how it's used and making comments.
In scenarios where OcteonTx2 is used as a offload card (DPU) or VRAN,
some of the pkts
will be sent to host for processing. This path is used to forward such
pkts to host and viceversa.
It's not for internal communication between host and firmware.

Sounds like you should be implementing the switchdev model, then.

It's using the standard netdev interfaces, APIs and network stack
packet forwarding.
I don't understand what's wrong with this.

Again, upstream comes with expectations around semantics of objects 
and modeling.

The devlink params are being used across drivers to do proprietary
HW settings. There is no PTP protocol or pkt related configuration
that's being jammed through in the other patch.

I don't even know how to respond to this. And guess what, PTP is
relatively well documented, which clearly proves that your "please
document.." request is empty rhetoric.

quoted

Frankly if the octeontx2 team continues on its current path I think
the driver should be removed. You bring no benefit to the community
I don't see why we'd give you the time of day.  

That's an unnecessary comment crossing the lines.

I'm not sure why. Please elucidate how working with your team is
bringing any benefit to the community.