From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] octeontx2-af: NPC parser and NIX blocks initialization Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:55:19 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1540230964-5506-1-git-send-email-sunil.kovvuri@gmail.com> <20181022.201943.53165079906230990.davem@davemloft.net> <20181026154713.GE820@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Sunil Kovvuri , David Miller , Networking , linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, Sunil Goutham To: Andrew Lunn Return-path: Received: from mail-qt1-f194.google.com ([209.85.160.194]:37631 "EHLO mail-qt1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726159AbeJ0AdL (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2018 20:33:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20181026154713.GE820@lunn.ch> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:47 PM Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > I fear that setting a precedent of using the mbox for user-level > > configuration management would mean that we would have to > > treat each of these interfaces as an ABI, which in turn requires > > much deeper review as well as raising the fundamental question > > on how this should be done across drivers. The mailbox interface > > seem inherently nonportable to other hardware here, which is > > a significant downside. > > Hi Arnd > > You might want to go look at the Freescale DPAA2. They also want to > add an ioctl to pass binary blob commands to their firmware. The > patches were re-posted recently. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/5/873 > > When this was first posted, i strongly argued against it. > You also commented about this: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/24/29 > > We need to consistent here. I think it is a bad idea. I agree, and this is exactly why I commented here. I just wanted to first ensure that it's not me misunderstanding the scope and intention of the interfaces here before I say it's a mistake. Arnd