From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
To: "Chautru, Nicolas" <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"gakhil@marvell.com" <gakhil@marvell.com>,
"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
"Vargas, Hernan" <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
Cc: "mdr@ashroe.eu" <mdr@ashroe.eu>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
"stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:28:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5c44b739-883f-0b8c-9fe4-038a665593c1@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4451D4A22F47D35B0D85CD5CF8789@BY5PR11MB4451.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On 8/31/22 3:37 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
> Hi Thomas, Tom,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 12:26 PM
>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; Maxime Coquelin
>> <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>; dev@dpdk.org; thomas@monjalon.net;
>> gakhil@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Vargas, Hernan
>> <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
>> Cc: mdr@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>;
>> 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 <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:45 AM
>>>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>>>> thomas@monjalon.net; gakhil@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
>>>> trix@redhat.com; Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: mdr@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>;
>>>> 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 ?
Tom
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-01 0:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-08 0:01 Nicolas Chautru
2022-07-08 0:01 ` [PATCH v1 01/10] baseband/acc200: introduce PMD for ACC200 Nicolas Chautru
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 00/11] baseband/acc200 Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] baseband/acc100: refactory to segregate common code Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 15:19 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] baseband/acc200: introduce PMD for ACC200 Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 15:41 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] baseband/acc200: add HW register definitions Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] baseband/acc200: add info get function Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] baseband/acc200: add queue configuration Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] baseband/acc200: add LDPC processing functions Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] baseband/acc200: add LTE " Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] baseband/acc200: add support for FFT operations Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] baseband/acc200: support interrupt Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] baseband/acc200: add device status and vf2pf comms Nic Chautru
2022-09-12 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] baseband/acc200: add PF configure companion function Nic Chautru
2022-07-08 0:01 ` [PATCH v1 02/10] baseband/acc200: add HW register definitions Nicolas Chautru
2022-07-08 0:01 ` [PATCH v1 03/10] baseband/acc200: add info get function Nicolas Chautru
2022-07-08 0:01 ` [PATCH v1 04/10] baseband/acc200: add queue configuration Nicolas Chautru
2022-07-08 0:01 ` [PATCH v1 05/10] baseband/acc200: add LDPC processing functions Nicolas Chautru
2022-07-08 0:01 ` [PATCH v1 06/10] baseband/acc200: add LTE " Nicolas Chautru
2022-07-08 0:01 ` [PATCH v1 07/10] baseband/acc200: add support for FFT operations Nicolas Chautru
2022-07-08 0:01 ` [PATCH v1 08/10] baseband/acc200: support interrupt Nicolas Chautru
2022-07-08 0:01 ` [PATCH v1 09/10] baseband/acc200: add device status and vf2pf comms Nicolas Chautru
2022-07-08 0:01 ` [PATCH v1 10/10] baseband/acc200: add PF configure companion function Nicolas Chautru
2022-07-12 13:48 ` [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200 Maxime Coquelin
2022-07-14 18:49 ` Vargas, Hernan
2022-07-17 13:08 ` Tom Rix
2022-07-22 18:29 ` Vargas, Hernan
2022-07-22 20:19 ` Tom Rix
2022-08-15 17:52 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-08-30 7:44 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-08-30 19:45 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-08-31 16:43 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-08-31 19:20 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-08-31 19:26 ` Tom Rix
2022-08-31 22:37 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-09-01 0:28 ` Tom Rix [this message]
2022-09-01 1:26 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-09-01 13:49 ` Tom Rix
2022-09-01 20:34 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-09-06 12:51 ` Tom Rix
2022-09-14 10:35 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-09-14 11:50 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-09-14 13:19 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-09-14 13:27 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-09-14 13:44 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-09-14 14:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-09-14 19:57 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-09-14 20:08 ` Maxime Coquelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5c44b739-883f-0b8c-9fe4-038a665593c1@redhat.com \
--to=trix@redhat.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gakhil@marvell.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=hernan.vargas@intel.com \
--cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
--cc=mdr@ashroe.eu \
--cc=nicolas.chautru@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).