From: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: <thomas@monjalon.net>, <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
<liuyonglong@huawei.com>, Gagandeep Singh <g.singh@nxp.com>,
Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
Simei Su <simei.su@intel.com>, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>,
Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] ethdev: add the check for PTP capability
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:58:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <993a921d-3191-1b9a-847e-83acde073a9d@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50f72945-4f45-4f0f-9c52-a62522e27c26@amd.com>
在 2024/1/29 19:16, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
> On 1/27/2024 1:52 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>> 在 2024/1/27 0:54, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>> On 1/11/2024 6:25 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>>>> Hi Ferruh,
>>>>
>>>> 在 2023/11/23 19:56, lihuisong (C) 写道:
>>>>> 在 2023/11/2 7:39, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>>>>> timesync_read_rx_timestamp
>>>>>> On 9/21/2023 12:59 PM, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>>>>>>> add ice & igc maintainers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 在 2023/9/21 19:06, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2023 11:02 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Ferruh,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry for my delay reply because of taking a look at all PMDs
>>>>>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 在 2023/9/16 1:46, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2023 9:42 AM, Huisong Li wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> From the first version of ptpclient, it seems that this
>>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>> assume that
>>>>>>>>>>> the PMDs support the PTP feature and enable PTP by default.
>>>>>>>>>>> Please see
>>>>>>>>>>> commit ab129e9065a5 ("examples/ptpclient: add minimal PTP
>>>>>>>>>>> client")
>>>>>>>>>>> which are introduced in 2015.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And two years later, Rx HW timestamp offload was introduced to
>>>>>>>>>>> enable or
>>>>>>>>>>> disable PTP feature in HW via rte_eth_rxmode. Please see
>>>>>>>>>>> commit 42ffc45aa340 ("ethdev: add Rx HW timestamp capability").
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Huisong,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As far as I know this offload is not for PTP.
>>>>>>>>>> PTP and TIMESTAMP are different.
>>>>>>>>> If TIMESTAMP offload cannot stand for PTP, we may need to add
>>>>>>>>> one new
>>>>>>>>> offlaod for PTP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you please detail what is "PTP offload"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It indicates whether the device supports PTP or enable PTP feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have 'rte_eth_timesync_enable()' and 'rte_eth_timesync_disable()'
>>>>>> APIs to control PTP support.
>>>>> No, this is just to control it.
>>>>> we still need to like a device capablity to report application if the
>>>>> port support to call this API, right?
>>>>>> But when mention from "offload", it is something device itself does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PTP is a protocol (IEEE 1588), and used to synchronize clocks.
>>>>>> What I get is protocol can be parsed by networking stack and it can be
>>>>>> used by application to synchronize clock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you are refer to "PTP offload", does it mean device (NIC)
>>>>>> understands the protocol and parse it to synchronize device clock with
>>>>>> other devices?
>>>>> Good point. PTP offload is unreasonable.
>>>>> But the capablity is required indeed.
>>>>> What do you think of introducing a RTE_ETH_DEV_PTP in
>>>>> dev->data->dev_flags for PTP feature?
>>>> Can you take a look at this discussion line again?
>>>>
>>>> Let's introduce a RTE_ETH_DEV_PTP in dev->data->dev_flags to reveal if
>>>> the device support PTP feature.
>>>>
>> Hi Ferruh,
>>
>> Thanks for taking your time to reply.
>>
>>> Hi Huisong,
>>>
>>> First let me try to summarize the discussion since it has been some time.
>>>
>>> HW timer block can be used for Rx timestamp offload
>>> (RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_TIMESTAMP) and/or PTP support, but they are two
>>> different things.
>>>
>>> This patch uses 'RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_TIMESTAMP' capability for PTP
>>> support, which is wrong.
>>>
>> correct.
>>> After we agreed on above, your next question is to use 'dev_flag' to
>>> report PTP capability.
>>>
>>> First, can you please describe what is the motivation to learn if HW
>>> supports PTP or now, what is the benefit of knowing this.
>> There are a couple of device which have the same driver on a platform or
>> OS.
>> But just allow one device to support or be responsible for PTP feature.
>> The firmware will report a capability to tell the device if it is
>> support PTP.
>> But, currently, driver doesn't know how to report user which device
>> support PTP feature.
>>
> Driver can hold a private data that records if PTP supported by the
> device or not, and according this value PTP dev_ops can return error or
> success.
>
> This may not be ideal but it lets user to know about the support status,
> can this work?
I don't think it is user friendly.
Users know which port supports the PTP feature only when the API fails
to be invoked, right?
In addition, this is a common issue for all supported PTP device. So It
is better to do this check in PMD.
>
>
>> In addition, many drivers use RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588 to control PTP code flow.
>> Whether the device supports PTP is irrelevant to this macro.
>>
> Yes, I guess because both features use same HW, there is confusion there.
>
>>> If we agree that there is a need to know the PTP capability, question is
>>> where to report this capability.
>>>
>>> Suggested 'dev_flags' is used for various things, some are internal
>>> flags and some are status, I don't think overloading this variable is
>>> not good idea.
>> Yes, we need to consider carefully.
>>> Other option is an update 'rte_eth_dev_info_get()' for it but it has the
>>> same problem, this function is already overloaded with many different
>>> things.
>>>
>>> We can have an API just to get PTP capability, but this will require a
>>> new dev_ops, this can be an option but my concern is having a capability
>>> dev_ops for each feature create a mess in dev_ops.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can have single get_capability() API, and it gets features as
>>> flags to return if that feature is supported or not, but this requires a
>>> wider discussion.
>>>
>>> Instead can we deduce the capability from PTP relevant dev_ops, if they
>>> are implemented we can say it is supported? This doesn't require new
>>> support.
>> Thank you mentioning so many ways.
>> For the end of advice, I don't think it is appropriate.
>> Because we have to modify dynamically the pointer address of all PTP
>> APIs in dev_ops on the above case.
>>
> I was thinking for the case application distinguish if PTP related
> dev_ops set or not, but after your explanation I can see this won't help
> for your case.
> Because in your case PTP dev_ops implemented but some devices support it
> and some don't, and you are looking for a way to distinguish it.
Yes
>
>> How about we use rte_eth_dev_info.dev_capa to report PTP offload?
>> This is specifically used to report "Non-offload capabilities" according
>> to its document.
>>
> As mentioned above 'rte_eth_dev_info' is overloaded, I am for being more
> cautious to expand it more.
> Also I think it is a wider discussion if we want a capability reporting
> in ethdev and where it should be.
How about we send a RFC patch which use rte_eth_dev_info.dev_capa to
report PTP offload and start to disscuss this issue?
And add Thomas's patch [1] and this patch.
[1]https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230203132810.14187-1-thomas@monjalon.net/
>
> .
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-29 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-28 13:39 [PATCH 0/3] some bugfixes for PTP Dongdong Liu
2022-06-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 1/3] examples/ptpclient: add the check for PTP capability Dongdong Liu
2022-06-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 2/3] net/hns3: fix fail to receive PTP packet Dongdong Liu
2022-06-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 3/3] ethdev: add the check for the valitity of timestamp offload Dongdong Liu
2022-07-02 8:17 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] some bugfixes for PTP Dongdong Liu
2022-07-02 8:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] examples/ptpclient: add the check for PTP capability Dongdong Liu
2022-07-02 8:17 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] net/hns3: fix fail to receive PTP packet Dongdong Liu
2022-07-02 8:17 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] ethdev: add the check for the valitity of timestamp offload Dongdong Liu
2022-07-06 14:57 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2022-07-07 2:05 ` lihuisong (C)
2023-08-17 8:42 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] ethdev: add the check for PTP capability Huisong Li
2023-08-17 8:42 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] examples/ptpclient: " Huisong Li
2023-09-15 17:29 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-09-21 9:18 ` lihuisong (C)
2023-09-21 11:02 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-09-21 11:22 ` Hemant Agrawal
2023-10-20 4:05 ` lihuisong (C)
2023-09-21 11:36 ` lihuisong (C)
2023-08-17 8:42 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] ethdev: add the check for the valitity of timestamp offload Huisong Li
2023-09-15 17:46 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] ethdev: add the check for PTP capability Ferruh Yigit
2023-09-21 10:02 ` lihuisong (C)
2023-09-21 11:06 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-09-21 11:17 ` Hemant Agrawal
2023-10-20 3:58 ` lihuisong (C)
2023-11-01 23:39 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-11-23 11:40 ` lihuisong (C)
2023-11-01 23:39 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-09-21 11:59 ` lihuisong (C)
2023-11-01 23:39 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-11-23 11:56 ` lihuisong (C)
2024-01-11 6:25 ` lihuisong (C)
2024-01-26 16:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-01-27 1:52 ` lihuisong (C)
2024-01-29 11:16 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-01-29 13:58 ` lihuisong (C) [this message]
2024-01-29 15:00 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=993a921d-3191-1b9a-847e-83acde073a9d@huawei.com \
--to=lihuisong@huawei.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=g.singh@nxp.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=junfeng.guo@intel.com \
--cc=liuyonglong@huawei.com \
--cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=qiming.yang@intel.com \
--cc=simei.su@intel.com \
--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).