From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0CFA0543; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 14:51:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01AD040143; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 14:51:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32036400D6 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 14:51:46 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1662468705; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OM5AVE5MLSxGkm6dAlSkdaGUjZ+n7zF6GwzhJYMW/3M=; b=h5u3vmCDKnU9EfkZBdgzZDGzMp3ngtKyARra0oBKNTo4qK+KKIiqrAlyMZOlUIAuNc5Ar5 Abl7vH1ZM7DtEx42O/LbexiAxd/Xw75E/Og+21MLpmTM/3UtvKtgfbZX89Vb5yjb+qp0Zy bszbvnXjIn0mb1FYYEvi/8zFJH++cug= Received: from mail-qt1-f198.google.com (mail-qt1-f198.google.com [209.85.160.198]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-226-KodUMj-6PiOXFzx-fjfyJw-1; Tue, 06 Sep 2022 08:51:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: KodUMj-6PiOXFzx-fjfyJw-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f198.google.com with SMTP id e30-20020ac8011e000000b00342f61e67aeso8908472qtg.3 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2022 05:51:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-language:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=OM5AVE5MLSxGkm6dAlSkdaGUjZ+n7zF6GwzhJYMW/3M=; b=0PfA8woyfHdoEFamqzrZJpe1dkm2+gkem+wJQfXGEJKTL24G+4kss9VhqF/OBF4y3a AQqJuukANfo4B/RbJCCtfvw8n/6d9JeAqqjGJXmJT6P8bKrE7+tqygJ7uTIMKN8ADK1U X2VsysIHbh8GfX2klPU04MsiA94jb7eNCyNgX48P3VSTuVMLmWM1dSdaBuN9Uo0hclk8 dYtiQOqE0viJRPuWWdIIyeBEhPL58r0K0ZD9I+HCGql19zirwiD/deS6Rdg/l9av1yA4 rnpOZXaehePTTxkedg2Ed2zuO344tNXXbWo34gxuvmRPvPf/kPQJuw58FZtO2FRhzFgb RJgw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1S3CuD5g8x6Hqwi86x20XShPnRkgLwnktAC5FvOLjgLzMiT2ec n00VOPZMrfPa8ZJ085ZtxGIedHrOe7QZzrnKXELnPCArapx/N9a0YkQXXpj+6YWtxgOHejt+cDX A9Vs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:387:b0:345:432:578a with SMTP id j7-20020a05622a038700b003450432578amr41599439qtx.588.1662468704114; Tue, 06 Sep 2022 05:51:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6ZNdpfc4lWKgJJCoMq7CyLEbfT3/EO1g/VAgBzCbJtTSREotpiH05ceD8kzdR6HE0vim9qKQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:387:b0:345:432:578a with SMTP id j7-20020a05622a038700b003450432578amr41599410qtx.588.1662468703825; Tue, 06 Sep 2022 05:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (024-205-208-113.res.spectrum.com. [24.205.208.113]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bl4-20020a05620a1a8400b006b9526cfe6bsm10975638qkb.80.2022.09.06.05.51.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Sep 2022 05:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200 To: "Chautru, Nicolas" , Maxime Coquelin , "dev@dpdk.org" , "thomas@monjalon.net" , "gakhil@marvell.com" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "Vargas, Hernan" Cc: "mdr@ashroe.eu" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" References: <1657238503-143836-1-git-send-email-nicolas.chautru@intel.com> <9087aa5a-6ba8-5df2-8a68-63926843ff7e@redhat.com> <5144a909-7e19-bcda-7bae-89b42fff100c@redhat.com> <85c41e33-ae4b-2b58-ccea-f951eb2bfd69@redhat.com> <5c44b739-883f-0b8c-9fe4-038a665593c1@redhat.com> From: Tom Rix Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 05:51:40 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On 9/1/22 1:34 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote: > Hi Tom, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tom Rix >> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 6:49 AM >> To: Chautru, Nicolas ; Maxime Coquelin >> ; dev@dpdk.org; thomas@monjalon.net; >> gakhil@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Vargas, Hernan >> >> Cc: mdr@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce ; >> david.marchand@redhat.com; stephen@networkplumber.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200 >> >> >> On 8/31/22 6:26 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote: >>> Hi Tom, >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Tom Rix >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 5:28 PM >>>> To: Chautru, Nicolas ; Maxime Coquelin >>>> ; dev@dpdk.org; >> thomas@monjalon.net; >>>> gakhil@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Vargas, Hernan >>>> >>>> Cc: mdr@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce ; >>>> david.marchand@redhat.com; stephen@networkplumber.org >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200 >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/31/22 3:37 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote: >>>>> Hi Thomas, Tom, >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Tom Rix >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 12:26 PM >>>>>> To: Chautru, Nicolas ; Maxime Coquelin >>>>>> ; dev@dpdk.org; >> thomas@monjalon.net; >>>>>> gakhil@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Vargas, Hernan >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: mdr@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce ; >>>>>> david.marchand@redhat.com; stephen@networkplumber.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/30/22 12:45 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Maxime, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:45 AM >>>>>>>> To: Chautru, Nicolas ; dev@dpdk.org; >>>>>>>> thomas@monjalon.net; gakhil@marvell.com; >> hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; >>>>>>>> trix@redhat.com; Vargas, Hernan >>>>>>>> Cc: mdr@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce >>>>>>>> ; david.marchand@redhat.com; >>>>>>>> stephen@networkplumber.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Nicolas, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/12/22 15:48, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Nicolas, Hernan, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (Adding Hernan in the recipients list) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/8/22 02:01, Nicolas Chautru wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This is targeting 22.11 and includes the PMD for the integrated >>>>>>>>>> accelerator on Intel Xeon SPR-EEC. >>>>>>>>>> There is a dependency on that parallel serie still in-flight >>>>>>>>>> which extends the bbdev api >>>>>>>>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=23894 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I will be offline for a few weeks for the summer break but >>>>>>>>>> Hernan will cover for me during that time if required. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> Nic >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nicolas Chautru (10): >>>>>>>>>>    baseband/acc200: introduce PMD for ACC200 >>>>>>>>>>    baseband/acc200: add HW register definitions >>>>>>>>>>    baseband/acc200: add info get function >>>>>>>>>>    baseband/acc200: add queue configuration >>>>>>>>>>    baseband/acc200: add LDPC processing functions >>>>>>>>>>    baseband/acc200: add LTE processing functions >>>>>>>>>>    baseband/acc200: add support for FFT operations >>>>>>>>>>    baseband/acc200: support interrupt >>>>>>>>>>    baseband/acc200: add device status and vf2pf comms >>>>>>>>>>    baseband/acc200: add PF configure companion function >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>   MAINTAINERS                              |    3 + >>>>>>>>>>   app/test-bbdev/meson.build               |    3 + >>>>>>>>>>   app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c         |   76 + >>>>>>>>>>   doc/guides/bbdevs/acc200.rst             |  244 ++ >>>>>>>>>>   doc/guides/bbdevs/index.rst              |    1 + >>>>>>>>>>   drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h |  468 +++ >>>>>>>>>>   drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pmd.h     |  690 ++++ >>>>>>>>>>   drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_vf_enum.h |   89 + >>>>>>>>>>   drivers/baseband/acc200/meson.build      |    8 + >>>>>>>>>>   drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_cfg.h |  115 + >>>>>>>>>>   drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_pmd.c | 5403 >>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>>>   drivers/baseband/acc200/version.map      |   10 + >>>>>>>>>>   drivers/baseband/meson.build             |    1 + >>>>>>>>>>   13 files changed, 7111 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 doc/guides/bbdevs/acc200.rst >>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 >> drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h >>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pmd.h >>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 >> drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_vf_enum.h >>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/meson.build >>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 >> drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_cfg.h >>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 >> drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_pmd.c >>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/version.map >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Comparing ACC200 & ACC100 header files, I understand ACC200 is >>>>>>>>> an evolution of the ACC10x family. The FEC bits are really >>>>>>>>> close, >>>>>>>>> ACC200 main addition seems to be FFT acceleration which could be >>>>>>>>> handled in ACC10x driver based on device ID. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think both drivers have to be merged in order to avoid code >>>>>>>>> duplication. That's how other families of devices (e.g. i40e) >>>>>>>>> are handled. >>>>>>>> I haven't seen your reply on this point. >>>>>>>> Do you confirm you are working on a single driver for ACC family >>>>>>>> in order to avoid code duplication? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The implementation is based on distinct ACC100 and ACC200 drivers. >>>>>>> The 2 >>>>>> devices are fundamentally different generation, processes and IP. >>>>>>> MountBryce is an eASIC device over PCIe while ACC200 is an >>>>>>> integrated >>>>>> accelerator on Xeon CPU. >>>>>>> The actual implementation are not the same, underlying IP are all >>>>>>> distinct >>>>>> even if many of the descriptor format have similarities. >>>>>>> The actual capabilities of the acceleration are different and/or new. >>>>>>> The workaround and silicon errata are also different causing >>>>>>> different >>>>>> limitation and implementation in the driver (see the serie with >>>>>> ongoing changes for ACC100 in parallel). >>>>>>> This is fundamentally distinct from ACC101 which was a derivative >>>>>>> product >>>>>> from ACC100 and where it made sense to share implementation >> between >>>>>> ACC100 and ACC101. >>>>>>> So in a nutshell these 2 devices and drivers are 2 different >>>>>>> beasts and the >>>>>> intention is to keep them intentionally separate as in the serie. >>>>>>> Let me know if unclear, thanks! >>>>>> Nic, >>>>>> >>>>>> I used a similarity checker to compare acc100 and acc200 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://dickgrune.com/Programs/similarity_tester/ >>>>>> >>>>>> l=simum.log >>>>>> if [ -f $l ]; then >>>>>>     rm $l >>>>>> fi >>>>>> >>>>>> sim_c -s -R -o$l -R -p -P -a . >>>>>> >>>>>> There results are >>>>>> >>>>>> ./acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h consists for 100 % of >>>>>> ./acc100/acc100_pf_enum.h material ./acc100/acc100_pf_enum.h >>>>>> consists for 98 % of ./acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h material >>>>>> ./acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.h consists for >>>>>> 98 % of ./acc200/acc200_pmd.h material ./acc200/acc200_vf_enum.h >>>>>> consists for 95 % of ./acc100/acc100_pf_enum.h material >>>>>> ./acc200/acc200_pmd.h consists for 92 % of >>>>>> ./acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.h material ./acc200/rte_acc200_cfg.h >>>>>> consists for 92 % of ./acc100/rte_acc100_cfg.h material >>>>>> ./acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.c consists for 87 % of >>>>>> ./acc200/rte_acc200_pmd.c material ./acc100/acc100_vf_enum.h >>>>>> consists for >>>>>> 80 % of ./acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h material >>>>>> ./acc200/rte_acc200_pmd.c consists for 78 % of >>>>>> ./acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.c material ./acc100/rte_acc100_cfg.h >>>>>> consists for 75 % of ./acc200/rte_acc200_cfg.h material >>>>>> >>>>>> Spot checking the first *pf_enum.h at 100%, these are the devices' >>>>>> registers, they are the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> I raised this similarity issue with 100 vs 101. >>>>>> >>>>>> Having multiple copies is difficult to support and should be avoided. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the end user, they should have to use only one driver. >>>>>> >>>>> There are really different IP and do not have the same interface >>>>> (PCIe/DDR vs >>>> integrated) and there is big serie of changes which are specific to >>>> ACC100 coming in parallel. Any workaround, optimization would be >> different. >>>>> I agree that for the coming serie of integrated accelerator we will >>>>> use a >>>> unified driver approach but for that very case that would be quite >>>> messy to artificially put them within the same PMD. >>>> >>>> How is the IP different when 100% of the registers are the same ? >>>> >>> These are 2 different HW aspects. The base toplevel configuration registers >> are kept similar on purpose but the underlying IP are totally different design >> and implementation. >>> Even the registers have differences but not visible here, the actual RDL file >> would define more specifically these registers bitfields and implementation >> including which ones are not implemented (but that is proprietary >> information), and at bbdev level the interface is not some much register >> based than processing based on data from DMA. >>> Basically even if there was a common driver, all these would be duplicated >> and they are indeed different IP (including different vendors).. >>> But I agree with the general intent and to have a common driver for the >> integrated driver serie (ACC200, ACC300...) now that we are moving away >> from PCIe/DDR lookaside acceleration and eASIC/FPGA implementation >> (ACC100/AC101). >> >> Looking a little deeper, at how the driver is lays out some of its bitfields and >> private data by reviewing the >> >> ./acc200/acc200_pmd.h consists for 92 % of ./acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.h >> >> There are some minor changes to existing reserved bitfields. >> A new structure for fft. >> The acc200_device, the private data for the driver, is an exact copy of >> acc100_device. >> >> acc200_pmd.h is the superset and could be used with little changes as a >> common acc_pmd.h. >> acc200 is doing everything the acc100 did in a very similar if not exact way, >> adding the fft feature. >> >> Can you point to some portion of this patchset that is so unique that it could >> not be abstracted to an if-check or function and so requiring this separate, >> nearly identical driver ? >> > You used a similarity checker really, there are actually way more relevent differences than what you imply here. > With regards to the 2 pf_enum.h file, there are many registers that have same or similar names but have now different values being mapped hence you just cannot use one for the other. > Saying that "./acc200/acc200_pmd.h consists for 92 % of ./acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.h" is just not correct and really irrelevant. > Just do a diff side by side please and check, that should be extremely obvious, that metrics tells more about the similarity checker limitation than anything else. > Even when using a common driver for ACC200/300 they will have distinct register enum files being auto-generated and coming from distinct RDL. > Again just do a diff of these 2 files. I believe you will agree that is not relevant for these files to try to artificially merged these together. > > With regards to the pmd.h, some structure/defines are indeed common and could be moved to a common file (for instance turboencoder and LDPC encoder which are more vanilla and unlikely to change for future product unlike the decoders which have different feature set and behaviour; or some 3GPP constant that can be defined once). > We can definitely change these to put together shared structures/defines, but not intending to try to artificially put things together with spaghetti code. > We would like to keep 3 parallel versions of these PMD for 3 different product lines which are indeed fundamentally different designs (including different workaround required as can be seen on the parallel ACC100 serie under review). > - one version for FPGA implementation (support for N3000, N6000, ...) > - one version for eASIC lookaside card implementation (ACC100, ACC101, ...) > - one version for the integrated Xeon accelerators (ACC200, ACC300, ...) Some suggestions on refactoring, For the registers, have a common file. For the shared functionality, ex/ ldpc encoder, break these out to its own shared file. The public interface, see my earlier comments on the documentation, should be have the same interfaces and the few differences highlighted. Tom > > Let me know if unclear > Nic > > > > > > > >> Tom >> >> >> >>>> Tom >>>>