Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:40:27 -0700

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:18:09 -0600 David Ahern wrote:
> can you respond to Jason's email with the proposal for the new fwctl
> subsystem and identify places you do not agree? That would provide more
> concrete discussion points. Thanks,

Respond in what way, David? Comment on technical aspects of whether 
a common class device with a discovery mechanism and a sprinkling of
semantically meaningless fields can be implemented? Some trivial object
hierarchy?

On whether someone can actually enforce any of the 4 "don't"s, and
whether this interface is basically encouraging and giving a leg up
to those willing to be dishonest?

Or should we go for another loop of me talking about openness and
building common abstractions, and vendors saying how their way of
doing basic configuration is so very special, and this is just for
debug and security and because others.

There's absolutely no willingness to try and build a common interface
here.