netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/4] ptp_ocp: implement DPLL ops

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y5HI4deFBTvDFIGB@nanopsycho>
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:22:09 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...com>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/4] ptp_ocp: implement DPLL ops

Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 06:05:24PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 14:19:22 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> FWIW auxdev makes absolutely no sense to me for DPLL :/
>>> So Jiri, please say why.
>>
>> Why not? It's a subdev of a device. In mlx5, we have separate auxdevs
>> for eth, rdma, vnet, representors. DPLL is also a separate entity which
>> could be instantiated independently (as it is not really dependent on
>> eth/rdma/etc)). Auxdev looks like an awesome fit. Why do you think it is
>> not?
>>
>> Also, what's good about auxdev is that you can maintain them quite
>> independetly. So there is going to be driver/dpll/ directory which would
>> contain all dpll drivers.
>
>To what practical benefit? Where do we draw the line? Do you want
>PTP clocks to also be auxdevs? DPLL lives in netdev, we don't have
>to complicate things. auxdev is a Conway's law solution.

Auxdev infra is quite simple to implement, I'm not sure what do you mean
by complicating thing here.


>
>mlx5 already looks like sausage meat, it's already minced so you can
>fit it there quite easily, but don't force it on non-enterprise devices.

Not forcing, just suggesting. It's a low-hanging fruit, why not reach
it?

>
>There is non 1:1 relationship with a bus device and subsystem in Linux,
>LMK when you convinced Greg otherwise.

Sure there is not. But maybe that is due to the simple fact that auxdev
was introduces, what, 2 years back? My point is, we are introducing new
subsystem, wouldn't it be nice to start it clean?