[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 02/19] net/ice: support device initialization

[Li, Xiaoyun]

Hi

> Do we check if process is secondary and ICE PMD is already is initialized? If we
> do not check will we run to multi process reinitilization?

Yes. We check. It is in [PATCH 16/19] net/ice: support basic RX/TX. Please see that.
We roughly split the ice codes in different patch. So the file in only one patch is not complete.

> 
> > +	ret = ice_init_hw(hw);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to initialize HW");
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "FW %d.%d.%05d API %d.%d",
> > +		     hw->fw_maj_ver, hw->fw_min_ver, hw->fw_build,
> > +		     hw->api_maj_ver, hw->api_min_ver);
> > +
> > +	ice_pf_sw_init(dev);
> > +	ret = ice_init_mac_address(dev);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to initialize mac address");
> > +		goto err_init_mac;
> > +	}
> 
> Assuming in secondary multi process this will be skipped if primary has already
> initialized. Is this understanding correct?
> 
> > +
> > +	ret = ice_res_pool_init(&pf->msix_pool, 1,
> > +				hw-
> > >func_caps.common_cap.num_msix_vectors - 1);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to init MSIX pool");
> > +		goto err_msix_pool_init;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	ret = ice_pf_setup(pf);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to setup PF");
> > +		goto err_pf_setup;
> > +	}
> 
> Pool init and pf setup also for secondary skip if primary is done?
> 
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +
> > +err_pf_setup:
> > +	ice_res_pool_destroy(&pf->msix_pool);
> > +err_msix_pool_init:
> > +	rte_free(dev->data->mac_addrs);
> > +err_init_mac:
> > +	ice_sched_cleanup_all(hw);
> > +	rte_free(hw->port_info);
> > +	ice_shutdown_all_ctrlq(hw);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +ice_release_vsi(struct ice_vsi *vsi)
> > +{
> > +	struct ice_hw *hw;
> > +	struct ice_vsi_ctx vsi_ctx;
> > +	enum ice_status ret;
> > +
> > +	if (!vsi)
> > +		return 0;
> 
> Should we check if process is secondary and primary sees the port, then skip the
> destroy?
> 
> > +
> > +	hw = ICE_VSI_TO_HW(vsi);
> > +
> > +	memset(&vsi_ctx, 0, sizeof(vsi_ctx));
> > +
> > +	vsi_ctx.vsi_num = vsi->vsi_id;
> > +	vsi_ctx.info = vsi->info;
> > +	ret = ice_free_vsi(hw, vsi->idx, &vsi_ctx, false, NULL);
> > +	if (ret != ICE_SUCCESS) {
> > +		PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to free vsi by aq, %u", vsi->vsi_id);
> > +		rte_free(vsi);
> > +		return -1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	rte_free(vsi);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +ice_dev_uninit(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) {
> > +	struct ice_hw *hw = ICE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data-
> > >dev_private);
> > +	struct ice_pf *pf = ICE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_PF(dev->data->dev_private);
> > +
> > +	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> 
> Here we have check for secondary, but if the port is added in secondary and not
> primary is it valid to return 0?
> 
> > +	ice_dev_close(dev);
> > +
> > +	dev->dev_ops = NULL;
> > +	dev->rx_pkt_burst = NULL;
> > +	dev->tx_pkt_burst = NULL;
> > +
> > +	rte_free(dev->data->mac_addrs);
> > +	dev->data->mac_addrs = NULL;
> > +
> > +	ice_release_vsi(pf->main_vsi);
> > +	ice_sched_cleanup_all(hw);
> > +	rte_free(hw->port_info);
> > +	ice_shutdown_all_ctrlq(hw);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> > +static void
> > +ice_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) {
> > +	struct ice_pf *pf = ICE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_PF(dev->data->dev_private);
> > +	struct ice_hw *hw = ICE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data-
> > >dev_private);
> > +
> > +	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY)
> > +		return;
> > +
> 
> Same as previous comment, if port is started in secondary it will not be seen in
> primary. Hence is it right to return 0 without checking?
> 
> > +	ice_res_pool_destroy(&pf->msix_pool);
> > +	ice_release_vsi(pf->main_vsi);
> > +
> > +	ice_shutdown_all_ctrlq(hw);
> > +}
> 
> <snipped>