Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-111717-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
From: Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@broadcom.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:46:27 -0400
To: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>,
	Leonid Bloch <lbloch@nvidia.com>, Itay Avraham <itayavr@nvidia.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
	Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@oracle.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver
Message-ID: <Zf2n02q0GevGdS-Z@C02YVCJELVCG>
References: <20240207072435.14182-1-saeed@kernel.org>
 <Zcx53N8lQjkpEu94@infradead.org>
 <ZczntnbWpxUFLxjp@C02YVCJELVCG.dhcp.broadcom.net>
 <20240214175735.GG1088888@nvidia.com>
 <20240304160237.GA2909161@nvidia.com>
 <9cc7127f-8674-43bc-b4d7-b1c4c2d96fed@kernel.org>
 <2024032248-ardently-ribcage-a495@gregkh>
 <510c1b6b-1738-4baa-bdba-54d478633598@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <510c1b6b-1738-4baa-bdba-54d478633598@kernel.org>

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 09:24:29AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 3/22/24 1:32 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > It's the middle of the merge window, not much we can actually do and
> > this patch series itself couldn't be applied as-is, so it's hard to see
> > what could have happened on my end...
> > 
> 
> The proposal was sent a week before the end of the last development
> cycle, and I believe the intent was to motivate discussion around a
> concrete proposal to converge on an acceptable solution before sending
> patches.
> 
> On your end, what would be helpful is either a simple yes this seems
> reasonable or no you don't like it for reasons X, Y, and Z.
> 

Well said, David.

I would totally support doing something like this in a fairly generic
way that could be leveraged/instantiated by drivers that will allow
communication/inspection of hardware blocks in the datapath.  There are
lots of different ways this could go, so feedback on this would help get
us all moving in the right direction.