On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:36:23AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 9:25 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:49:12PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:42 PM David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com> > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 20:10:08 +0300 > > > > > > > > > > > This is the second version of the patch-set to upstream the GAUDI > > > > > > NIC code > > > > > > into the habanalabs driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only modification from v2 is in the ethtool patch (patch 12). > > > > > > Details > > > > > > are in that patch's commit message. > > > > > > > > > > > > Link to v2 cover letter: > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/12/201 > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Jakub, this driver definitely can't go-in as it is > > > > > currently > > > > > structured and designed. > > > > Why is that ? > > > > Can you please point to the things that bother you or not working > > > > correctly? > > > > I can't really fix the driver if I don't know what's wrong. > > > > > > > > In addition, please read my reply to Jakub with the explanation of why > > > > we designed this driver as is. > > > > > > > > And because of the RDMA'ness of it, the RDMA > > > > > folks have to be CC:'d and have a chance to review this. > > > > As I said to Jakub, the driver doesn't use the RDMA infrastructure in > > > > the kernel and we can't connect to it due to the lack of H/W support > > > > we have > > > > Therefore, I don't see why we need to CC linux-rdma. > > > > I understood why Greg asked me to CC you because we do connect to the > > > > netdev and standard eth infrastructure, but regarding the RDMA, it's > > > > not really the same. > > > > > > Ok, to do this "right" it needs to be split up into separate drivers, > > > hopefully using the "virtual bus" code that some day Intel will resubmit > > > again that will solve this issue. > > Hi Greg, > > Can I suggest an alternative for the short/medium term ? > > > > In an earlier email, Jakub said: > > "Is it not possible to move the files and still build them into a single > > module?" > > > > I thought maybe that's a good way to progress here ? > > Cross-directory builds of a single module are crazy. Yes, they work, > but really, that's a mess, and would never suggest doing that. > > > First, split the content to Ethernet and RDMA. > > Then move the Ethernet part to drivers/net but build it as part of > > habanalabs.ko. > > Regarding the RDMA code, upstream/review it in a different patch-set > > (maybe they will want me to put the files elsewhere). > > > > What do you think ? > > I think you are asking for more work there than just splitting out into > separate modules :) > > thanks, > > greg k-h Hi Greg,
If cross-directory building is out of the question, what about splitting into separate modules ? And use cross-module notifiers/calls ? I did that with amdkfd and amdgpu/radeon a couple of years back. It worked (that's the best thing I can say about it). The main problem with this "virtual bus" thing is that I'm not familiar with it at all and from my experience I imagine it would take a considerable time and effort to upstream this infrastructure work. This could delay the NIC code for a couple of years, which by then this won't be relevant at all. So I'm trying to find some middle ground here on how to proceed. Thanks, Oded
