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

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:53:39 -0700

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 15:33:05 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Uh no, mlx5 already has an excellent in-tree driver, thank you very
> much. The configuration is not changing the driver, it is changing the
> device.
> 
> Consider, I can ship unique devices pre-configured for each site's
> special needs. They still work with the same inbox driver.
> 
> In fact that happens already for certain large customers. It is why
> Jakub recently pointed out that Meta doesn't need any
> provisioning/mlx5ctl/misc driver. They just buy different devices than
> everyone else.

> Further it is really rude and inappropriate to say that some customers
> should not be able to enjoy intree drivers because of your aesthetic
> opinion of hacks in a device's design.

To my knowledge the "customizations" are mostly around fitting into OCP
servers. Those unfamiliar with how hyperscalers operate can mentally
replace $hyperscaler with HP or Dell in your message. Minus all the
proprietary OOB management stuff those guys also provide.

> Overreach. The job of the kernel maintainer is to review the driver
> software, not the device design.

Agreed. I rarely if ever comment on what I think about device design.

Discussion is about mlx5ctrl not "the device" as much as you'd like
to equate the two.