Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF driver

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2023 05:21:22 -0400

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:36:00AM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/18/2023 10:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 04:26:24PM -0700, 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/[email-masked]/
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email-masked]/
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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.
> > 
> > Kconfig entry and description too?
> > 
> 
> The current Kconfig entry has Intel references.
> 
> +config IDPF
> +	tristate "Intel(R) Infrastructure Data Path Function Support"
> +	depends on PCI_MSI
> +	select DIMLIB
> +	help
> +	  This driver supports Intel(R) Infrastructure Processing Unit (IPU)
> +	  devices.
> 
> It can be updated with Intel references removed when the spec becomes
> standard and meets the community requirements.

Right, name says IDPF support help says IPU support.
Also config does not match name.

Do you want:

config INTEL_IDPF
	tristate "Intel(R) Infrastructure Data Path Function Support"

and should help say

	  This driver supports Intel(R) Infrastructure Data Path Function
	  devices.
?