DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"Chautru, Nicolas" <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"gakhil@marvell.com" <gakhil@marvell.com>,
	"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
	"Vargas, Hernan" <hernan.vargas@intel.com>,
	Tom Rix <trix@redhat.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, 14 Sep 2022 13:50:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <95130dc6-69ca-9be4-ccda-fabbc6c6c88a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16306674.geO5KgaWL5@thomas>



On 9/14/22 12:35, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 06/09/2022 14:51, Tom Rix:
>> On 9/1/22 1:34 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>>> On 8/31/22 6:26 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>>>>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>>>>> On 8/31/22 3:37 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> 
> +1 to have common files, and all in a single directory drivers/baseband/acc100/

Jus to be sure we are aligned, do you mean to have both drivers in the
same directory, which will share some common files? That's the way I
would go.

Thanks,
Maxime


  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-14 11:50 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
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 [this message]
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=95130dc6-69ca-9be4-ccda-fabbc6c6c88a@redhat.com \
    --to=maxime.coquelin@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=mdr@ashroe.eu \
    --cc=nicolas.chautru@intel.com \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=trix@redhat.com \
    /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).