Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] net/ark: Arkville PMD component integration

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 3/23/2017 11:01 PM, Ed Czeck wrote:
> * Flesh out device configuration
> * Add links dev_ops
> * allow dynamic extension loading
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shepard Siegel <shepard.siegel@atomicrules.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Miller <john.miller@atomicrules.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ed Czeck <ed.czeck@atomicrules.com>

<...>

> +[Features]
> +Queue start/stop     = Y
> +Jumbo frame          = Y
> +Scattered Rx         = Y
> +Basic stats          = Y
> +Stats per queue      = Y

> +FW version           = Y

FW version is not required, as far as I can see, it requires
fw_version_get eth_dev_ops implemented.

<...>

> +	/* We are a single function multi-port device. */
> +	const unsigned int numa_node = rte_socket_id();
> +	struct ether_addr adr;
> +
> +	ret = ark_config_device(dev);
>  	dev->dev_ops = &ark_eth_dev_ops;
>  
> +	dev->data->mac_addrs = rte_zmalloc("ark", ETHER_ADDR_LEN, 0);
> +	if (!dev->data->mac_addrs) {
> +		PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR,
> +			    "Failed to allocated memory for storing mac address"
> +			    );
> +	}
> +	ether_addr_copy((struct ether_addr *)&adr, &dev->data->mac_addrs[0]);

"adr" has random value at this point, right? Why to copy it?


> +	/*
> +	 * We will create additional devices based on the number of requested
> +	 * ports
> +	 */
> +	int pc = 1;
> +	int p;

I am aware some people prefer the declaring variables close to context,
which is good idea, but if I remember correct, there was a patchset,
from Adrien, to make DPDK C99 compatible, will this break it?

> +
> +	if (ark->user_ext.dev_get_port_count) {
> +		pc = ark->user_ext.dev_get_port_count(dev, ark->user_data);
> +		ark->num_ports = pc;
> +	} else {
> +		ark->num_ports = 1;

Because pc has default value of "1", this if statement can be simplified.

> +	}
> +	for (p = 0; p < pc; p++) {
> +		struct ark_port *port;
> +
> +		port = &ark->port[p];
> +		struct rte_eth_dev_data *data = NULL;
> +
> +		port->id = p;
> +
> +		char name[RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN];
> +
> +		snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "arketh%d",
> +			 dev->data->port_id + p);
> +
> +		if (p == 0) {
> +			/* First port is already allocated by DPDK */
> +			port->eth_dev = ark->eth_dev;
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* reserve an ethdev entry */
> +		port->eth_dev = rte_eth_dev_allocate(name);
> +		if (!port->eth_dev) {
> +			PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR,
> +				    "Could not allocate eth_dev for port %d\n",
> +				    p);
> +			goto error;
> +		}
> +
> +		data = rte_zmalloc_socket(name, sizeof(*data), 0, numa_node);
> +		if (!data) {
> +			PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR,
> +				    "Could not allocate eth_dev for port %d\n",
> +				    p);
> +			goto error;
> +		}
> +		data->port_id = ark->eth_dev->data->port_id + p;

"ark->eth_dev->data->port_id" is port_id of the first physical ARK
device, and it looks like each device may have multiple ports and "p" is
the port_id within same device.

>From DPDK point of view, port_id is a global value incremented one by
each eth port, so port_id is a unique value, why adding these two values?

> +		port->eth_dev->data = data;

Why overwriting existing data value?

> +		port->eth_dev->device = &pci_dev->device;
> +		port->eth_dev->data->dev_private = ark;
> +		port->eth_dev->driver = ark->eth_dev->driver;
> +		port->eth_dev->dev_ops = ark->eth_dev->dev_ops;
> +		port->eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = ark->eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst;
> +		port->eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = ark->eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst;
> +
> +		rte_eth_copy_pci_info(port->eth_dev, pci_dev);
> +
> +		port->eth_dev->data->mac_addrs =
> +			rte_zmalloc(name, ETHER_ADDR_LEN, 0);
> +		if (!port->eth_dev->data->mac_addrs) {
> +			PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR,
> +				    "Memory allocation for MAC failed!"
> +				    " Exiting.\n");
> +			goto error;
> +		}
> +		ether_addr_copy(&adr,
> +				&port->eth_dev->data->mac_addrs[0]);
> +
> +		if (ark->user_ext.dev_init)
> +			ark->user_data =
> +				ark->user_ext.dev_init(dev, ark->a_bar, p);
> +	}

<...>

>  static int
>  eth_ark_dev_uninit(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>  {
> +	struct ark_adapter *ark =
> +		(struct ark_adapter *)dev->data->dev_private;
> +
>  	if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	if (ark->user_ext.dev_uninit)
> +		ark->user_ext.dev_uninit(dev, ark->user_data);
> +
> +	ark_pktgen_uninit(ark->pg);
> +	ark_pktchkr_uninit(ark->pc);
> +
>  	dev->dev_ops = NULL;
>  	dev->rx_pkt_burst = NULL;
>  	dev->tx_pkt_burst = NULL;
> +	if (dev->data->mac_addrs)
> +		rte_free(dev->data->mac_addrs);
> +	if (dev->data)
> +		rte_free(dev->data);
> +

Shouldn't uninit go thorough all ports ("for (p = 0; p < pc; p++) ") and
uninit them all?

>  	return 0;
>  }
>  

<...>

> +/*
> + * The following functions are optional and are directly mapped
> + * from the DPDK PMD ops structure.
> + * Each function if implemented is called after the ARK PMD
> + * implementation executes.
> + */
> +int dev_configure(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, void *user_data);
> +int dev_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, void *user_data);
> +void dev_stop(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, void *user_data);
> +void dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, void *user_data);
> +int link_update(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int wait_to_complete,
> +	void *user_data);
> +int dev_set_link_up(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, void *user_data);
> +int dev_set_link_down(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, void *user_data);
> +void stats_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_stats *stats,
> +	void *user_data);
> +void stats_reset(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, void *user_data);
> +void mac_addr_add(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> +	struct ether_addr *macadr,
> +				  uint32_t index,
> +				  uint32_t pool,
> +				  void *user_data);
> +void mac_addr_remove(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint32_t index, void *user_data);
> +void mac_addr_set(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct ether_addr *mac_addr,
> +	void *user_data);

Where these functions are implemented? Do we need these declerations?