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

[Jiri Pirko]

Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 03:15:55AM CET, kuba@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 21:03:35 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> On 07 Feb 07:03, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> >On Tue,  6 Feb 2024 23:24:30 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:  
>> >> From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxx>

[...]

>
>> Ok you don't like DPLL,
>
>I didn't say I dislike DPLL. I think it's a very odd example for
>you to pick for nVidia's contribution. My recollection is:
>
> - Maciej from Intel started developing upstream API for SyncE support
> - I asked him to generalize it to DPLL, he started working on it
> - nVidia expressed interest in creating a common interface, we thought
>   it'd be great to align vendors
> - nVidia hired Maciej from Intel, shutting down Intel's progress for a while
> - nVidia went AWoL, long response times, we held meetings to nudge
>   you along, no commitments
> - then after months and months Jiri started helping Arkadiusz and Vadim
>
>I remember thinking at the time that it must have been a terrible
>experience for Intel, definitely not how cooperation upstream should
>look :|

For the record, I spent huge amount of time reviewing the patchset and
ended up with redesigning significant chunks of it, steering Arkadiusz
and Vadim the way I felt is the correct one. Oftentimes I said to myself
it would be much quicker to take the patchset over and do it myself :)

Anyway, at the end, I think that the result is very good. Solid and well
defined uapi, nice kernel implementation, 3 drivers implementing it,
each with slightly different usecase, all clicks. If this is not
good example of upstream cooperation, I'm not sure what else is...

But, I don't think this is related to the misc driver discussion, I just
wanted to express my pov on dpll process, when I see people talking
about it :)

>
>IDK how disconnected from upstream netdev you have to be to put that on
>your banner.

[...]