Re: [PATCH for-next] RDMA/hns: Add UD support for hip08

[Weihang Li <liweihang@hisilicon.com>]

On 2019/8/30 16:50, Weihang Li wrote:
> From: Lijun Ou <oulijun@huawei.com>
> 
> This patch aims to let hip08 support communication of Unreliable
> Datagram.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lijun Ou <oulijun@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Weihang Li <liweihang@hisilicon.com>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_qp.c    |  5 +++++
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
> index 206dfdb..e27d864a 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
> @@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ static int hns_roce_v2_post_send(struct ib_qp *ibqp,
>  		tmp_len = 0;
>  
>  		/* Corresponding to the QP type, wqe process separately */
> -		if (ibqp->qp_type == IB_QPT_GSI) {
> +		if (ibqp->qp_type == IB_QPT_GSI || ibqp->qp_type == IB_QPT_UD) {
>  			ud_sq_wqe = wqe;
>  			memset(ud_sq_wqe, 0, sizeof(*ud_sq_wqe));
>  
> @@ -420,8 +420,7 @@ static int hns_roce_v2_post_send(struct ib_qp *ibqp,
>  			roce_set_field(ud_sq_wqe->byte_48,
>  				       V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_48_SGID_INDX_M,
>  				       V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_48_SGID_INDX_S,
> -				       hns_get_gid_index(hr_dev, qp->phy_port,
> -							 ah->av.gid_index));
> +				       ah->av.gid_index);
>  
>  			memcpy(&ud_sq_wqe->dgid[0], &ah->av.dgid[0],
>  			       GID_LEN_V2);
> @@ -3130,7 +3129,8 @@ static void set_qpc_wqe_cnt(struct hns_roce_qp *hr_qp,
>  			    struct hns_roce_v2_qp_context *context,
>  			    struct hns_roce_v2_qp_context *qpc_mask)
>  {
> -	if (hr_qp->ibqp.qp_type == IB_QPT_GSI)
> +	if (hr_qp->ibqp.qp_type == IB_QPT_GSI ||
> +	    hr_qp->ibqp.qp_type == IB_QPT_UD)
>  		roce_set_field(context->byte_4_sqpn_tst,
>  			       V2_QPC_BYTE_4_SGE_SHIFT_M,
>  			       V2_QPC_BYTE_4_SGE_SHIFT_S,
> @@ -3650,8 +3650,9 @@ static int modify_qp_init_to_rtr(struct ib_qp *ibqp,
>  	roce_set_field(context->byte_20_smac_sgid_idx,
>  		       V2_QPC_BYTE_20_SGE_HOP_NUM_M,
>  		       V2_QPC_BYTE_20_SGE_HOP_NUM_S,
> -		       ((ibqp->qp_type == IB_QPT_GSI) ||
> -		       hr_qp->sq.max_gs > HNS_ROCE_V2_UC_RC_SGE_NUM_IN_WQE) ?
> +		       ((ibqp->qp_type == IB_QPT_GSI ||
> +			ibqp->qp_type == IB_QPT_UD) ||
> +			hr_qp->sq.max_gs > HNS_ROCE_V2_UC_RC_SGE_NUM_IN_WQE) ?
>  		       hr_dev->caps.wqe_sge_hop_num : 0);
>  	roce_set_field(qpc_mask->byte_20_smac_sgid_idx,
>  		       V2_QPC_BYTE_20_SGE_HOP_NUM_M,
> @@ -4564,7 +4565,9 @@ static int hns_roce_v2_destroy_qp_common(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev,
>  	struct ib_device *ibdev = &hr_dev->ib_dev;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	if (hr_qp->ibqp.qp_type == IB_QPT_RC && hr_qp->state != IB_QPS_RESET) {
> +	if ((hr_qp->ibqp.qp_type == IB_QPT_RC ||
> +	     hr_qp->ibqp.qp_type == IB_QPT_UD) &&
> +	    hr_qp->state != IB_QPS_RESET) {
>  		/* Modify qp to reset before destroying qp */
>  		ret = hns_roce_v2_modify_qp(&hr_qp->ibqp, NULL, 0,
>  					    hr_qp->state, IB_QPS_RESET);
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_qp.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_qp.c
> index ba81768..5374cd0 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_qp.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_qp.c
> @@ -377,6 +377,10 @@ static int hns_roce_set_user_sq_size(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev,
>  		hr_qp->sge.sge_cnt = roundup_pow_of_two(hr_qp->sq.wqe_cnt *
>  							(hr_qp->sq.max_gs - 2));
>  
> +	if (hr_qp->ibqp.qp_type == IB_QPT_UD)
> +		hr_qp->sge.sge_cnt = roundup_pow_of_two(hr_qp->sq.wqe_cnt *
> +						       hr_qp->sq.max_gs);
> +
>  	if ((hr_qp->sq.max_gs > 2) && (hr_dev->pci_dev->revision == 0x20)) {
>  		if (hr_qp->sge.sge_cnt > hr_dev->caps.max_extend_sg) {
>  			dev_err(hr_dev->dev,
> @@ -1005,6 +1009,7 @@ struct ib_qp *hns_roce_create_qp(struct ib_pd *pd,
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	switch (init_attr->qp_type) {
> +	case IB_QPT_UD:
>  	case IB_QPT_RC: {
>  		hr_qp = kzalloc(sizeof(*hr_qp), GFP_KERNEL);
>  		if (!hr_qp)
> 

Hi Jason & Leon,

Do you have some suggestions on this patch? Could it be applied to for-next?

Thanks,
Weihang