Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] Wireless Base Band Device (bbdev)

["Mokhtar, Amr" <amr.mokhtar@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday 3 October 2017 16:18
> To: Mokhtar, Amr <amr.mokhtar@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; fbl@redhat.com; aconole@redhat.com; bluca@debian.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] Wireless Base Band Device (bbdev)
> 
> 03/10/2017 16:29, Mokhtar, Amr:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > > 25/08/2017 15:46, Amr Mokhtar:
> > > > +int
> > > > +rte_bbdev_configure(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t num_queues,
> > > > +		const struct rte_bbdev_conf *conf);
> > >
> > > I am not convinced by the "configure all" function in ethdev.
> > > We break the ABI each time we add a new feature to configure.
> > > And it does not really help to have all configurations in one struct.
> > > Would you mind to split the struct rte_bbdev_conf and split the
> > > function accordingly?
> >
> > There is nothing to split tbh. The only parameter it has is the socket_id.
> > And in fact, it's optional, can be null. The only config we need is num_queues.
> 
> Indeed, there is nothing in this struct.
> If you need only to allocate queues, you just have to rename this function.
> 
> > I don't see in the near future that we may need to add more config params.
> > As a side, in the time of the implementation we were trying to avoid
> > any diversions from the current design ideology of ethdev and cryptodev.
> 
> There is no ideology in ethdev, just some mistakes ;)
> 
> > Can we leave it for consideration with future releases?
> 
> No it should be addressed from the beginning.
> 
> When you will need to add something more to configure port-wise, you should
> add a new function instead of breaking the ABI of the global conf struct.
> That's why the configure option should be more specialized.
> 
> Distro people were complaining about ABI breakage last week.
> This is exactly an example of how to avoid it from the beginning.
> 

Ok, got your point. I was looking at it from an API-only standpoint.
How about modifying it into?
int
rte_bbdev_setup_queues(uint16_t dev_id, uint16_t num_queues, int socket_id);

> 
> > > [...]
> > > > +struct __rte_cache_aligned rte_bbdev {
> > > > +	rte_bbdev_enqueue_ops_t enqueue_ops; /**< Enqueue function */
> > > > +	rte_bbdev_dequeue_ops_t dequeue_ops;  /**< Dequeue function */
> > > > +	const struct rte_bbdev_ops *dev_ops;  /**< Functions exported by
> > > > +PMD
> > > */
> > > > +	struct rte_bbdev_data *data;  /**< Pointer to device data */
> > > > +	bool attached;  /**< If device is currently attached or not */
> > >
> > > What "attached" means?
> > > I'm afraid you are trying to manage hotplug in the wrong layer.
> >
> > Hotplug is not supported in the current release.
> 
> It is not answering the question.
> What is an "attached" device?

"Attached" means that the PCI device was probed and the bbdev device slot is allocated.
For software devices, means that a virtual bbdev device (vdev) is allocated for bbdev.
Same way the "attached" approach used in cryptodev.

> 
> 
> > > [...]
> > > > +/** Structure specifying a single operation */ struct rte_bbdev_op {
> > > > +	enum rte_bbdev_op_type type;  /**< Type of this operation */
> > > > +	int status;  /**< Status of operation that was performed */
> > > > +	struct rte_mempool *mempool;  /**< Mempool which op instance is
> > > > +in
> > > */
> > > > +	void *opaque_data;  /**< Opaque pointer for user data */
> > > > +	/**
> > > > +	 * Anonymous union of operation-type specific parameters. When
> > > allocated
> > > > +	 * using rte_bbdev_op_pool_create(), space is allocated for the
> > > > +	 * parameters at the end of each rte_bbdev_op structure, and the
> > > > +	 * pointers here point to it.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	RTE_STD_C11
> > > > +	union {
> > > > +		void *generic;
> > > > +		struct rte_bbdev_op_turbo_dec *turbo_dec;
> > > > +		struct rte_bbdev_op_turbo_enc *turbo_enc;
> > > > +	};
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > I am not sure it is a good idea to fit every operations in the same
> > > struct and the same functions.
> >
> > Due to the fact that our design adopts this idea that a device can
> > support both the encode and decode operations.
> > Then, at the time of PMD registration, the enqueue functions is allocated.
> > This enqueue() function is common for both operations.
> > This fitted operation structure is essential for the driver to decide on the
> operation.
> 
> Sorry I do not understand why you must have a "generic operation".
> Please, could you try again to explain this design to someone not fully
> understanding how turbo enc/dec works?

Oh, sorry, I was not paying attention that you're referring to "void *generic"
It is just a place-holder for any other operation types. Can be removed if you like.