Re: [PATCH v1 3/7] fpga: dfl: Allow for ports with no local bar space.

[Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>]

On 2/17/22 11:31 PM, Zhang, Tianfei wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:06 PM
>> To: Zhang, Tianfei <tianfei.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>;
>> mdf@kernel.org; Xu, Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>; linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org;
>> linux-doc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: corbet@lwn.net; Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/7] fpga: dfl: Allow for ports with no local bar space.
>>
>>
>> On 2/14/22 3:26 AM, Tianfei zhang wrote:
>>> From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>>   From a fpga partial reconfiguration standpoint, a port may not be
>>> connected any local BAR space.  The port could be connected to a
>>> different PCIe Physical Function (PF) or Virtual Function (VF), in
>>> which case another driver instance would manage the endpoint.
>> It is not clear if this is part of iofs or a bug fix.
> This is the new implementation/feature of IOFS.
> On IOFS support multiple methods to access the AFU.
> 1. Legacy Model. This is used for N3000 and N5000 card.
> In this model the entire AFU region is a unit of PR, and there is a Port device connected to this AFU.
> On DFL perspective, there is "Next AFU" point to the AFU, and the "BarID" is  the PCIe Bar ID of AFU.
> In this model, we can use the AFU APIs to access the entire AFU resource, like MMIO.
> 2. Micro-Personas in AFU.
> IOFS intruding new model for PR and AFU access.
> Micro-Personas allow the RTL developer to designate their own AFU-defined PR regions.
> In this model the unit of PR is not the entire AFU, instead
> the unit of PR can be any size block or blocks inside the AFU.
> 3. Multiple VFs per PR slot.
> In this method, we can instance multiple VFs over SRIOV for one PR slot, and access the AFU resource
> by different VFs in virtualization usage. In this case, the Port device would not connected to AFU (the BarID of Port device
> should be set to invalid), so this patch want to support this use model.

What I am looking for is how the older cards using (my term) dfl 1 will 
still work with dfl 2 and vice versa.

No where do I see a version check for dfl 2 nor a pci id check so either 
this just works or backward compatibility has not be considered.

Please add a backward compatibility section to the doc patch

>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tianfei Zhang <tianfei.zhang@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c index
>>> 4d68719e608f..8abd9b408403 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c
>>> @@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ static int find_dfls_by_default(struct pci_dev *pcidev,
>>>    		v = readq(base + FME_HDR_CAP);
>>>    		port_num = FIELD_GET(FME_CAP_NUM_PORTS, v);
>>>
>>> +		dev_info(&pcidev->dev, "port_num = %d\n", port_num);
>>>    		WARN_ON(port_num > MAX_DFL_FPGA_PORT_NUM);
>>>
>>>    		for (i = 0; i < port_num; i++) {
>>> @@ -258,6 +259,13 @@ static int find_dfls_by_default(struct pci_dev *pcidev,
>>>    			 */
>>>    			bar = FIELD_GET(FME_PORT_OFST_BAR_ID, v);
>>>    			offset = FIELD_GET(FME_PORT_OFST_DFH_OFST, v);
>>> +			if (bar >= PCI_STD_NUM_BARS) {
>> Is bar set to a better magic number that pci_std_num_bars ? maybe 0xff's
>>
>> How do you tell between this case and broken hw ?
> Yes, I agree that magic number is better, Currently the RTL using PCI_STD_NUM_BARS for an invalid PCIe bar number.

How do you tell between this case and broken hw ?

Tom

>> Move up a line and skip getting an offset that will not be used.
> Yes, this line is not necessary, I will remove it on next version patch.
>
>>> +				dev_info(&pcidev->dev, "skipping port without
>> local BAR space %d\n",
>>> +					 bar);
>>> +				continue;
>>> +			} else {
>>> +				dev_info(&pcidev->dev, "BAR %d offset %u\n",
>> bar, offset);
>>> +			}
>>>    			start = pci_resource_start(pcidev, bar) + offset;
>>>    			len = pci_resource_len(pcidev, bar) - offset;
>>>
>> Is similar logic needed for else-if (port) block below this ?
> I think, the else-if is not necessary. I will remove it on next version patch.
>> Tom