RE: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200

["Chautru, Nicolas" <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>]

Hi Tom, 
I had answered all of your comments from v4 before I went on time off. 
Let me know if any concern acking that v5, thanks
Nic

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 1:20 PM
> To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; Maxime Coquelin
> <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>; Chautru, Nicolas
> <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; thomas@monjalon.net;
> gakhil@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com
> Cc: mdr@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>;
> david.marchand@redhat.com; stephen@networkplumber.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200
> 
> Hernan
> 
> The changes I requested in v4, were not addressed in v5.
> 
> Can you make these changes for v6?
> 
> Tom
> 
> On 7/22/22 11:29 AM, Vargas, Hernan wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > The patch series for the ACC200 can wait until Nic's back.
> > Our priority are the changes for the bbdev API here:
> > https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=23912
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hernan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 8:08 AM
> > To: Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>; Maxime Coquelin
> > <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>; Chautru, Nicolas
> > <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; thomas@monjalon.net;
> > gakhil@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com
> > Cc: mdr@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>;
> > david.marchand@redhat.com; stephen@networkplumber.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200
> >
> >
> > On 7/14/22 11:49 AM, Vargas, Hernan wrote:
> >> Hi Tom, Maxime,
> >>
> >> Could you please review the v5 series that Nic submitted last week?
> >> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=23912
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Hernan
> > Hernan,
> >
> > For this patch series for the acc200, will you be able to refactor it so acc
> has a common base ?
> >
> > Or will this be on hold until Nic is back ?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 8:49 AM
> >> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> >> thomas@monjalon.net; gakhil@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
> >> trix@redhat.com; Vargas, Hernan <hernan.vargas@intel.com>
> >> Cc: mdr@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>;
> >> david.marchand@redhat.com; stephen@networkplumber.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200
> >>
> >> Hi Nicolas, Hernan,
> >>
> >> (Adding Hernan in the recipients list)
> >>
> >> On 7/8/22 02:01, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> >>> This is targeting 22.11 and includes the PMD for the integrated
> >>> accelerator on Intel Xeon SPR-EEC.
> >>> There is a dependency on that parallel serie still in-flight which
> >>> extends the bbdev api
> >>> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=23894
> >>>
> >>> I will be offline for a few weeks for the summer break but Hernan
> >>> will cover for me during that time if required.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Nic
> >>>
> >>> Nicolas Chautru (10):
> >>>      baseband/acc200: introduce PMD for ACC200
> >>>      baseband/acc200: add HW register definitions
> >>>      baseband/acc200: add info get function
> >>>      baseband/acc200: add queue configuration
> >>>      baseband/acc200: add LDPC processing functions
> >>>      baseband/acc200: add LTE processing functions
> >>>      baseband/acc200: add support for FFT operations
> >>>      baseband/acc200: support interrupt
> >>>      baseband/acc200: add device status and vf2pf comms
> >>>      baseband/acc200: add PF configure companion function
> >>>
> >>>     MAINTAINERS                              |    3 +
> >>>     app/test-bbdev/meson.build               |    3 +
> >>>     app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c         |   76 +
> >>>     doc/guides/bbdevs/acc200.rst             |  244 ++
> >>>     doc/guides/bbdevs/index.rst              |    1 +
> >>>     drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h |  468 +++
> >>>     drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pmd.h     |  690 ++++
> >>>     drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_vf_enum.h |   89 +
> >>>     drivers/baseband/acc200/meson.build      |    8 +
> >>>     drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_cfg.h |  115 +
> >>>     drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_pmd.c | 5403
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>     drivers/baseband/acc200/version.map      |   10 +
> >>>     drivers/baseband/meson.build             |    1 +
> >>>     13 files changed, 7111 insertions(+)
> >>>     create mode 100644 doc/guides/bbdevs/acc200.rst
> >>>     create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h
> >>>     create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pmd.h
> >>>     create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_vf_enum.h
> >>>     create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/meson.build
> >>>     create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_cfg.h
> >>>     create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_pmd.c
> >>>     create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/version.map
> >>>
> >> Comparing ACC200 & ACC100 header files, I understand ACC200 is an
> evolution of the ACC10x family. The FEC bits are really close, ACC200 main
> addition seems to be FFT acceleration which could be handled in ACC10x
> driver based on device ID.
> >>
> >> I think both drivers have to be merged in order to avoid code duplication.
> That's how other families of devices (e.g. i40e) are handled.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Maxime
> >>