From: "Chautru, Nicolas" <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"gakhil@marvell.com" <gakhil@marvell.com>,
"trix@redhat.com" <trix@redhat.com>
Cc: "thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Kinsella, Ray" <ray.kinsella@intel.com>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
"Vargas, Hernan" <hernan.vargas@intel.com>,
"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 4/5] baseband/acc100: modify validation code for ACC101
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 18:19:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BY5PR11MB445114DB516B38326345B536F8DC9@BY5PR11MB4451.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <93c28a9c-f08d-5619-bfa5-efaa6531852b@redhat.com>
Hi Maxime,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 1:00 AM
> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> gakhil@marvell.com; trix@redhat.com
> Cc: thomas@monjalon.net; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@intel.com>;
> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>;
> hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>;
> david.marchand@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] baseband/acc100: modify validation code for
> ACC101
>
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> On 5/26/22 00:15, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 7:33 AM
> >> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> >> gakhil@marvell.com; trix@redhat.com
> >> Cc: thomas@monjalon.net; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@intel.com>;
> >> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>;
> >> hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>;
> >> david.marchand@redhat.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] baseband/acc100: modify validation code
> >> for
> >> ACC101
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/24/22 02:08, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> >>> The validation requirement is different for the two devices.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/baseband/acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.c | 47
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/baseband/acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.c
> >>> b/drivers/baseband/acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.c
> >>> index 41475b2..e3706e0 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/baseband/acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/baseband/acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.c
> >>> @@ -1289,6 +1289,21 @@
> >>> RTE_BBDEV_TURBO_HALF_ITERATION_EVEN);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_BBDEV_DEBUG
> >>> +
> >>> +static inline bool
> >>> +is_acc100(struct acc100_queue *q)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return (q->d->device_variant == ACC100_VARIANT);
> >>
> >> I keep insisting, but please rely on the PCI device ID, there is no
> >> need to introduce a new field.
> >
> > Thanks. I have a couple of concerns changing this:
> > 1) the device id is not accessible from the structures currently passed by the
> functions which would rely on this. Ie. device_id is accessible from
> rte_bbdev/rte_device but not from acc100_device or acc100_queue. Would
> be convoluted to have to carry forward this structure when needed instead
> of using directly acc100_device structure.
> > 2) These call would be done as part of the workload operation where
> performance matters, best to keep the check as trivial as possible within the
> PMD.
>
> I think it is better to have a pointer to the rte_bbdev/rte_device than
> introducing a new ID.
>
> Regarding performance, is_acc100 is only defined in
> RTE_LIBRTE_BBDEV_DEBUG, so it should not be that critical.
That function is not intended to be only used for debug purpose but more generally for other handling
when the code would differ from ACC100 vs ACC101, includes future changes targeting next release.
>
> Regarding that, I have hard time to understand why we need to validate
> encoder/decoder parameters in ACC100 case, but not in ACC101 one. For
> example, I guess having a valid mempool pointer is required in both
> ACC100 and ACC101 cases.
This is due to difference in HW implementation in ACC100 and ACC101, ACC101 HW interface
would not require validation in driver of the input API.
>
> > Will aim for new patch in next few days based on the other refactory
> suggestions and unified driver.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Nic
>
> Thanks,
> Maxime
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-31 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-27 18:16 [PATCH v2 0/5] drivers/baseband: PMD to support ACC101 device Nicolas Chautru
2022-04-27 18:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] baseband/acc100: introduce PMD for ACC101 Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-08 13:02 ` Tom Rix
2022-05-09 21:23 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-05-10 8:52 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-05-10 11:55 ` Tom Rix
2022-05-23 17:53 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-04-27 18:17 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] baseband/acc100: modify validation code " Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-08 13:07 ` Tom Rix
2022-05-09 21:27 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-04-27 18:17 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] baseband/acc100: configuration of ACC101 from PF Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-08 13:38 ` Tom Rix
2022-05-09 21:36 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-05-10 12:02 ` Tom Rix
2022-04-27 18:17 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] baseband/acc100: start explicitly PF Monitor from PMD Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-08 13:44 ` Tom Rix
2022-05-09 22:07 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-04-27 18:17 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] baseband/acc100: add protection for some negative scenario Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-08 13:55 ` Tom Rix
2022-05-09 21:45 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-05-10 12:11 ` Tom Rix
2022-05-10 14:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-05-16 20:48 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] drivers/baseband: PMD to support ACC101 device Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-16 20:48 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] baseband/acc100: introduce PMD for ACC101 Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-19 19:55 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-05-16 20:48 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] baseband/acc100: modify validation code " Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-16 20:48 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] baseband/acc100: configuration of ACC101 from PF Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-19 20:13 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-05-23 17:06 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-05-16 20:48 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] baseband/acc100: add protection for some negative scenario Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-19 19:51 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] drivers/baseband: PMD to support ACC101 device Tom Rix
2022-05-23 21:25 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] drivers/baseband: PMD to support ACC100/ACC101 devices Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-23 21:25 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] baseband/acc100: update companion PF configure function Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-23 21:25 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] baseband/acc100: add protection for some negative scenario Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-23 21:25 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] baseband/acc100: introduce PMD for ACC101 Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-23 21:25 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] baseband/acc100: modify validation code " Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-23 21:25 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] baseband/acc100: configuration of ACC101 from PF Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-24 0:08 ` [PATCH v5 0/5] drivers/baseband: PMD to support ACC100/ACC101 devices Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-24 0:08 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] baseband/acc100: update companion PF configure function Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-24 0:08 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] baseband/acc100: add protection for some negative scenario Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-24 0:08 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] baseband/acc100: introduce PMD for ACC101 Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-24 0:08 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] baseband/acc100: modify validation code " Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-25 14:33 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-05-25 22:15 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-05-31 7:59 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-05-31 18:19 ` Chautru, Nicolas [this message]
2022-05-24 0:08 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] baseband/acc100: configuration of ACC101 from PF Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-25 13:24 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-05-25 22:09 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-05-26 0:49 ` [PATCH v6 0/5] drivers/baseband: PMD to support ACC100/ACC101 devices Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-26 0:55 ` Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-26 0:55 ` [PATCH v6 1/5] baseband/acc100: update companion PF configure function Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-26 0:55 ` [PATCH v6 2/5] baseband/acc100: add protection for some negative scenario Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-26 0:55 ` [PATCH v6 3/5] baseband/acc100: introduce PMD for ACC101 Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-30 7:40 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-05-31 18:59 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-05-26 0:55 ` [PATCH v6 4/5] baseband/acc100: modify validation code " Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-31 8:02 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-05-31 18:16 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-05-26 0:55 ` [PATCH v6 5/5] baseband/acc100: configuration of ACC101 from PF Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-31 7:35 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-05-31 18:28 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-05-31 22:31 ` [PATCH v7 0/6] drivers/baseband: PMD to support ACC100/ACC101 devices Nicolas Chautru
2022-05-31 22:31 ` [PATCH v7 1/6] baseband/acc100: update companion PF configure function Nicolas Chautru
2022-06-02 9:49 ` Kevin Traynor
2022-06-02 16:52 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-06-03 20:25 ` Vargas, Hernan
2022-05-31 22:31 ` [PATCH v7 2/6] baseband/acc100: add protection for some negative scenario Nicolas Chautru
2022-06-02 8:21 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-05-31 22:31 ` [PATCH v7 3/6] baseband/acc100: remove RTE prefix for internal macro Nicolas Chautru
2022-06-01 14:11 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-06-01 17:15 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-06-02 12:57 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-05-31 22:31 ` [PATCH v7 4/6] baseband/acc100: introduce PMD for ACC101 Nicolas Chautru
2022-06-02 12:23 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-05-31 22:31 ` [PATCH v7 5/6] baseband/acc100: modify validation code " Nicolas Chautru
2022-06-03 20:23 ` Vargas, Hernan
2022-05-31 22:31 ` [PATCH v7 6/6] baseband/acc100: configuration of ACC101 from PF Nicolas Chautru
2022-06-02 8:33 ` Maxime Coquelin
2022-06-06 14:54 ` [PATCH v7 0/6] drivers/baseband: PMD to support ACC100/ACC101 devices Chautru, Nicolas
2022-06-06 15:03 ` Akhil Goyal
2022-06-06 16:18 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2022-06-15 14:08 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2022-06-22 11:50 ` Akhil Goyal
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=BY5PR11MB445114DB516B38326345B536F8DC9@BY5PR11MB4451.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=nicolas.chautru@intel.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=ray.kinsella@intel.com \
--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).