Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] net/axgbe: enable IEEE 1588 PTP support for axgbe

["Sebastian, Selwin" <Selwin.Sebastian@amd.com>]

[AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only]

Hi Ferruh,
	Added recommended modifications and resubmitted the patch.  Removed offloads handling part and "DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS" Flag also as it is not yet supported by driver. 
 Commit 0625a29f42c62998318ee3e05b2420e436318678 forces the usage of  DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS for using ptpclient test application. I had to remove this commit for my test.  Any inputs on how this can be handled ?
 
Regards
Selwin
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> 
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 8:34 PM
To: Sebastian, Selwin <Selwin.Sebastian@amd.com>; dev@dpdk.org
Cc: Somalapuram, Amaranath <Amaranath.Somalapuram@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] net/axgbe: enable IEEE 1588 PTP support for axgbe

[CAUTION: External Email]

On 6/1/2020 1:57 PM, selwin.sebastian@amd.com wrote:
> From: Selwin Sebastian <selwin.sebastian@amd.com>
>
> Add ethdev APIs to support PTP timestamping

For the patch title, "net/axgbe: " already says the change is in the 'axgbe'
driver, no need to duplicate " ..  support for axgbe".

<...>

> +static inline uint64_t
> +div_u64_rem(uint64_t dividend, uint32_t divisor, uint32_t *remainder) 
> +{
> +     *remainder = dividend % divisor;
> +     return dividend / divisor;
> +}
> +
> +static inline uint64_t div_u64(uint64_t dividend, uint32_t divisor) {

The coding convention [1] we have says return type will be on seperate line, as already done in some of these functions. Since this is new code, better to start good, can you please apply the coding convention to all fucntions, like:

 static inline uint64_t
 div_u64(uint64_t dividend, uint32_t divisor)

[1]
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoc.dpdk.org%2Fguides%2Fcontributing%2Fcoding_style.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cselwin.sebastian%40amd.com%7C66b9bd3bd4ca48fb8d5c08d80961a079%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637269662196393667&amp;sdata=XbS0AFCJAZ69RzcG23v0sOGNetZqEKQpxvGqAG%2B7Crw%3D&amp;reserved=0
(I definitly suggest reading it if you didn't already)

<...>

> @@ -487,6 +490,7 @@ int axgbe_dev_tx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint16_t queue_idx,
>       struct axgbe_tx_queue *txq;
>       unsigned int tsize;
>       const struct rte_memzone *tz;
> +     struct rte_eth_dev_data *dev_data;
>
>       tx_desc = nb_desc;
>       pdata = dev->data->dev_private;
> @@ -507,6 +511,7 @@ int axgbe_dev_tx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint16_t queue_idx,
>               return -ENOMEM;
>       txq->pdata = pdata;
>
> +     dev_data = pdata->eth_dev->data;
>       txq->nb_desc = tx_desc;
>       txq->free_thresh = tx_conf->tx_free_thresh ?
>               tx_conf->tx_free_thresh : AXGBE_TX_FREE_THRESH; @@ 
> -518,7 +523,7 @@ int axgbe_dev_tx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint16_t queue_idx,
>       if (txq->nb_desc % txq->free_thresh != 0)
>               txq->vector_disable = 1;
>
> -     if (tx_conf->offloads != 0)
> +     if ((tx_conf->offloads != 0) || 
> + dev_data->dev_conf.txmode.offloads)
>               txq->vector_disable = 1;


This change seems unrelated with the rest of the patch, and I far as I remember this was in the another patch too. What do you think making this seperate patch with the proper description it deserves?