From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0323A2A5D for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:41:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2016 03:41:28 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,390,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="875984568" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2016 03:41:26 -0800 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:43:09 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Santosh Shukla Message-ID: <20160203114309.GA16802@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1454091717-32251-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <20160201134854.GE4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20160202054345.GI4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20160202084933.GJ4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/8] eal: pci: add api to rd/wr pci bar region X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:41:32 -0000 On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:48:44PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Santosh Shukla wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:50:18AM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > >>> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:44:14AM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote: > >>> >> Current use-case is virtio: It is used as io_bar which is first > >>> >> bar[1]. But implementation is generic, can be used to do rd/wr for > >>> >> other bar index too. Also vfio facilitate user to do rd/wr to pci_bars > >>> >> w/o mapping that bar, So apis will be useful for such cases in future. > >>> >> > >>> >> AFAIU: uio has read/write_config api only and Yes if bar region mapped > >>> >> then no need to do rd/wr, user can directly access the pci_memory. But > >>> >> use-case of this api entirely different: unmapped memory by > >>> >> application context i.e.. vfio_rd/wr-way {pread/pwrite-way}. > >>> >> > >>> >> Is above explanation convincing? Pl. let me know. > >>> > > >>> > TBH, not really. So, as you stated, it should be generic APIs to > >>> > read/write bar space, but limiting it to VFIO only and claiming > >>> > that read/write bar space is not support by other drivers (such > >>> > as UIO) while in fact it can (in some ways) doesn't seem right > >>> > to me. > >>> > > >>> > Anyway, it's just some thoughts from me. David, comments? > >>> > >>> >From the very start, same opinion. > >>> We should have a unique api to access those, and eal should hide > >>> details like kernel drivers (uio, vfio, whatever) to the pmd. > >>> > >>> Now the thing is, how to do this in an elegant and efficient way. > >> > >> I was thinking that we may just make it be IO port specific read/ > >> write functions: > >> > > > > Ok, > > > >> rte_eal_pci_ioport_read(dev, bar, buf, size) > >> { > >> > >> return if not an IO bar; > >> > >> if (has io) > >> return inb/w/l(); > >> > > > > In that case, It may be r / if (has io) / if (drv->kdrv == UIO) Nope, I meant platform supports inb/w/l() command. > > > >> if (vfio) > >> return vfio_ioport_read(); > >> > >> else, claim aloud that io port read is not allowed > >> } > >> > >> Let us not handle memory bar resource here: in such case, you should > >> go with rte_eal_pci_map_device() and do it with memory mapped io. > >> > >> Does that make any sense? > >> > > I am not entirely sure. > > Are you considering IGB_UIO, UIO_GENERIC and NIC_UIO: all the cases ? > > > > Just came-up something below what Yuanhan has proposed, Does this look okay? > > int rte_eal_pci_ioport_read(const struct rte_pci_device *device, > void *buf, size_t len, > off_t offset, > int bar_idx) Your implementation doesn't look right to me. But anyway, that's not important so far; the feasibility is. David, would you please comment on this? --yliu