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 16419A052A; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 15:25:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61F2140DA2; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 15:25:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from out0-147.mail.aliyun.com (out0-147.mail.aliyun.com [140.205.0.147]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E4B140D41 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 15:25:02 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alibaba-inc.com; s=default; t=1611671100; h=Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=/V7g/CwkwnkzkD1lDioTT+olV9rSNXKYEotLpGgt6q4=; b=xjgWZLvy9ktoZ0JNKFamPHmjP0sid9EaA3B7emfkZEFnhGVfcXR4KFzm5AKA3r9lRVmFW9xOl7i+aVAX40z5nMBmtGIWzN+2HPUyxHZGClH8SciHgpsGo4qYMWODnEOIIkzf2X1Of9ruNOeQq47xQMKczFcXQ5gaCgMvnoglGWw= X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS; BC=-1|-1; BR=01201311R151e4; CH=green; DM=||false|; DS=||; FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=ay29a033018047188; MF=huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com; NM=1; PH=DS; RN=9; SR=0; TI=SMTPD_---.JQdT75k_1611671098; Received: from 30.43.72.133(mailfrom:huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com fp:SMTPD_---.JQdT75k_1611671098) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 22:24:59 +0800 To: Maxime Coquelin , 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> <7fa8c2bb-b581-c233-9afd-332c146dca85@redhat.com> From: "=?UTF-8?B?6LCi5Y2O5LyfKOatpOaXtuatpOWIu++8iQ==?=" Message-ID: <8e2f491a-5ee1-1826-2cdd-a2800d77d146@alibaba-inc.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 22:24:54 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7fa8c2bb-b581-c233-9afd-332c146dca85@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US 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 2021/1/26 20:35, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > 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? > " Sorry, missed it. would do it. > > Thanks, > Maxime > > >> Thanks,  huawei >> >> >>>> Maxime >>>>