Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] misc: mlx5ctl: Add mlx5ctl misc driver

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:53:21AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > You said no to the devlink parameters as a way to tune an ASIC.
> 
> What? When?

You said you already rejected it at the very start of this discussion
and linked to the video recording of the rejection discussion:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231019165055.GT3952@nvidia.com/

This session was specifically on the 600 FW configuration parameters
that mlx5 has. This is something that is done today on non-secure boot
systems with direct PCI access on sysfs and would be absorbed into
this driver on secure-boot systems. Ie nothing really changes from the
broader ecosystem perspective.

The discussion starts at time index 22:11.

Dave (IIRC? sorry) is talking about unique things and suggesting
devlink. Many people in the audiance seem to support this idea

27:00 -> 28:00 you repeated this thread's argument about said NO
"occasionally you are allowed to use [devlink parameters] them"

At 29 you said just keep it all out of tree.

Oh, I chimed in around 30:00 saying it is not the kernel maintainers
job to force standardization. This is a user problem.

31:25 you said again "nothing"

31:30 S390 teams would like this and pushed back against "keep it all
out of tree" describing the situation as a "deadlock".

33:00 you said need two implementors for device specific parameters,
which misses the point of the discussion, IMHO.

And this was at the Dublin LPC, so over a year ago.

I second Dave's question - if you do not like mlx5ctl, then what is
your vision to solve all these user problems?

Jason