From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F32A052A; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:35:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930D2141481; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:35:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D4314145D for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:35:13 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1611664512; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ldkJaHXwO/DhQziq3qoXrnD0U2Z3NOfs3LdJEyMiqrw=; b=efCC8MxICzvP10r4OeamQ0KXoSIaSLQVlJKT/378GlFMI/1qAH0Z3hl/6txX+9N8DKLrEe NoauTYpFy92YlYDnvhICvZ1EYGNaX4HSsMyrt/9VNbaKezJ5dYHahD0Ktfc6rPmgsVlLHO NaJWYkcpUjPCRpBZ7gbRaHj4roLkGRY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-284-6WqfUTjoO72s_yqYlj6mxQ-1; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 07:35:10 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 6WqfUTjoO72s_yqYlj6mxQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C074AB8101; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.110.31] (unknown [10.36.110.31]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADE885C1A3; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:35:03 +0000 (UTC) To: =?UTF-8?B?6LCi5Y2O5LyfKOatpOaXtuatpOWIu++8iQ==?= , ferruh.yigit@intel.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org, anatoly.burakov@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, zhihong.wang@intel.com, chenbo.xia@intel.com, grive@u256.net, "Xueming(Steven) Li" References: <68ecd941-9c56-4de7-fae2-2ad15bdfd81a@alibaba-inc.com> <1603381885-88819-1-git-send-email-huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com> <1603381885-88819-4-git-send-email-huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com> <18871462-4d25-302a-2716-99ebec65c3ac@alibaba-inc.com> <40e0702d-7847-9dc3-1904-03a7b8e92c2e@alibaba-inc.com> <3c83a06d-c757-e470-441b-a8b7f496a953@redhat.com> <9b614cce-8e41-9ed6-a648-fbbe3fc14807@alibaba-inc.com> <2d3d225c-0645-7a8b-9f26-e8e9d91cea9a@alibaba-inc.com> From: Maxime Coquelin Message-ID: <7fa8c2bb-b581-c233-9afd-332c146dca85@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:35:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2d3d225c-0645-7a8b-9f26-e8e9d91cea9a@alibaba-inc.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] PCI: don't use vfio ioctl call to access PIO resource X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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 1/26/21 1:30 PM, 谢华伟(此时此刻） wrote: > > On 2021/1/22 15:25, chris wrote: >> >> On 2021/1/21 23:38, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>>> Do you mean we apply or abandon patch 3? I am both OK. The first >>>> priority to me is to enable MMIO bar support. >>> OK, so yes, I think we should abandon patch 2 and patch 3. >>> For patch 1, it looks valid to me, but I'll let Ferruh decide. >>> >>> For your device, if my understanding is correct, what we need to do is >>> to support MMIO for legacy devices. Correct? >> yes. >>> If so, the change should be in virtio_pci.c. In vtpci_init(), after >>> modern detection has failed, we should check the the BAR is PIO or MMIO >>> based on the flag. the result can be saved in struct virtio_pci_dev. >>> >>> >>> We would introduce new wrappers like vtpci_legacy_read, >>> vtpci_legacy_write that would either call rte_pci_ioport_read, >>> rte_pci_ioport_read in case of PIO, or rte_read32, rte_write32 in case >>> of MMIO. >> >> There are two choices. >> >> 1, apply patch 2. >> >>     IO/MMIO port are mapped and accessed using the same API. Kernel is >> doing in the same way like the following. >> >>             io_addr = pci_iomap >> >>                 get PIO directly or ioremap >> >>             iowrite16/32(val, io_addr + offset) >> >> I think applying patch 2 is a correct choice. It is a fix. Driver had >> better not know if bar is PIO or MMIO.  ioport in ioport_xx API means >> IO, not PIO. >> >> Btw, it only affects virtio PMD,  not that intrusive. >> >>  2, virtio specific change to enable MMIO support. >> >> Comparing with choice 1, i feels it is not that clean and pretty. >> >>> >>> It is not too late for this release, as the change will not be that >>> intrusive. But if you prepare such patch, please base it on top of my >>> virtio rework series; To make it easier to you, I added it to the dpdk- >>> next-virtio tree: >>> https://git.dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-virtio/log/?h=virtio_pmd_rework_v2 >>> > Hi Maxime: > > Decision on patch 2? > > I still think current patch 2 is cleaner. Hi, I actually replied one hour ago: " OK, that makes sense. I am OK with keeping patch 2, but would like Ferruh's ACK. Could you please post v6? " Thanks, Maxime > Thanks,  huawei > > >>> Maxime >>> >