Message-ID: <7969d09e-2b77-c1a7-0e38-f10d61c83638@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 09:17:08 -0700
From: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>
To: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Emil Tantilov <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>,
 intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, simon.horman@...igine.com,
 leon@...nel.org, decot@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com,
 jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Singhai, Anjali" <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
 "Orr, Michael" <michael.orr@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF driver

On 5/18/23 4:26 PM, 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.

More disruptive for who?

I think it would be better to change the name of the one driver now 
before a problem is created in the tree than to leave a point of 
confusion for the rest of the drivers to contend with in the future.

sln

Powered by blists - more mailing lists