From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5E2A0524; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:26:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549BA1BFE2; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:26:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay10.mail.gandi.net (relay10.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.230]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1E61BE90 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:25:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from u256.net (lfbn-idf2-1-1144-40.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.92.205.40]) (Authenticated sender: grive@u256.net) by relay10.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2AE3240014; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 07:25:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:25:51 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ga=C3=ABtan?= Rivet To: Manish Chopra Cc: "jerinjacobk@gmail.com" , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Igor Russkikh , Rasesh Mody , GR-Everest-DPDK-Dev , "rosen.xu@intel.com" , "tianfei.zhang@intel.com" , "heinrich.kuhn@netronome.com" , "qiming.yang@intel.com" , "qi.z.zhang@intel.com" Message-ID: <20200727072551.f6a3moaegjbhehke@u256.net> References: <20200724103846.12640-1-manishc@marvell.com> <20200724103846.12640-2-manishc@marvell.com> <20200725173224.okzt3owicgdjun5s@u256.net> <20200726224742.zyf7mn52zh3nvxpk@u256.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] drivers: add generic API to find PCI extended cap X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 27/07/20 05:10 +0000, Manish Chopra wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gaëtan Rivet > > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 4:18 AM > > To: Manish Chopra > > Cc: jerinjacobk@gmail.com; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran ; > > ferruh.yigit@intel.com; dev@dpdk.org; Igor Russkikh > > ; Rasesh Mody ; GR-Everest- > > DPDK-Dev ; rosen.xu@intel.com; > > tianfei.zhang@intel.com; heinrich.kuhn@netronome.com; > > qiming.yang@intel.com; qi.z.zhang@intel.com > > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] drivers: add generic API to find PCI > > extended cap > > > > On 26/07/20 19:47 +0000, Manish Chopra wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_pci/rte_pci.h b/lib/librte_pci/rte_pci.h > > > > > index a03235da1..fec51e15a 100644 > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_pci/rte_pci.h > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_pci/rte_pci.h > > > > > @@ -22,6 +22,22 @@ extern "C" { > > > > > #include > > > > > #include > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Conventional PCI and PCI-X Mode 1 devices have 256 bytes of > > > > > + * configuration space. PCI-X Mode 2 and PCIe devices have 4096 > > > > > +bytes of > > > > > + * configuration space. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +#define RTE_PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE 256 > > > > > +#define RTE_PCI_CFG_SPACE_EXP_SIZE 4096 > > > > > + > > > > > +/* Extended Capabilities (PCI-X 2.0 and Express) */ > > > > > +#define RTE_PCI_EXT_CAP_ID(header) (header & 0x0000ffff) > > > > > +#define RTE_PCI_EXT_CAP_NEXT(header) ((header >> 20) & > > 0xffc) > > > > > + > > > > > +#define RTE_PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_ERR 0x01 /* Advanced Error > > Reporting > > > > */ > > > > > +#define RTE_PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_DSN 0x03 /* Device Serial > > Number */ > > > > > + > > > > > > > > I understand that it is more natural to have those defines in the > > > > PCI lib, but I think there is no point in adding them in a separate > > > > lib, while the function using those is in the PCI bus. > > > > > > > > I think the defines should be put right before the > > > > rte_pci_find_next_ext_capability() prototype in > > > > drivers/bus/pci/rte_bus_pci.h. > > > > > > Hello Gaetan, > > > > > > I think these comes in the category of all RTE_PCI_* generic defines > > > (not just use in drivers/bus/pci/), Since caller of the API also need > > > to use it, For example, couple of RTE_PCI_* were added in patch #2 > > > used by qede drivers specifically. rte_pci.h sounds more generic than > > rte_bus_pci.h hence I thought it is the suitable place to consolidate them in > > there. > > > > > > Thanks !! > > > > Reading the additional symbols, particularly about SRIOV capa, I think you > > are right, it's probably better to have it all within rte_pci.h. > > > > To help developers, it would be better to point in the doc that the capability > > IDs useable as parameter `cap` can be any from RTE_PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_*, > > defined within librte_pci. The dev can then grep it. > > Sure, I will add the pointer to librte_pci in the comment section for > rte_pci_find_next_ext_capability() > > > > > One additional thing: > > > > > > > +#define RTE_PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE 256 > > > > > +#define RTE_PCI_CFG_SPACE_EXP_SIZE 4096 > > > > > + > > > > > +/* Extended Capabilities (PCI-X 2.0 and Express) */ > > > > > +#define RTE_PCI_EXT_CAP_ID(header) (header & 0x0000ffff) > > > > > +#define RTE_PCI_EXT_CAP_NEXT(header) ((header >> 20) & > > 0xffc) > > > > I think those macros are not useful as part of the public API, they are only > > used to implement rte_pci_find_next_ext_capability(). Can you confirm? If > > this is correct, I think they should be moved to the compilation unit > > implementing rte_pci_find_next_ext_capability(). > > > > Hi Gaetan, > > Yes Mostly, but there is a similar piece of code left in drivers/raw/ifpga [ifpga_pci_find_ext_capability()] only > which utilizes these symbols as well, which I did not want to be removed/cleaned up must as a part of this > series because that implementation is based on pread() instead of rte_pci_read_config(). I was not sure > if that driver can also directly use rte_pci_find_next_ext_capability() too, I do not have those fpga based devices > to test if at all I were to do that cleanup/removal now in that driver, so I didn't attempt to make such functional > changes in that driver now. [May be this can be cleaned up too later on with proper testing or may be a new API > based on pread() can be added further if those drivers can't use rte_pci_find_next_ext_capability() directly]. > > Thanks. Ok, as it is used elsewhere my suggestion does not stand, thanks for clarifying. -- Gaëtan