[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 00/15] Introduce SoC device/driver framework for EAL
Jan Viktorin
viktorin at rehivetech.com
Sun Sep 18 12:04:52 CEST 2016
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 09:41:55 +0000
Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jan Viktorin [mailto:viktorin at rehivetech.com]
>
[...]
> > > And for each platform/product....
> > >
> > > > I agree, that this can sometimes lead to code duplication. Moreover,
> > > > it opens door for a very non-standard, unsecure and wrong-by-design
> > > > approaches. I'd like more to provide one or more scan
> > > > implementations in EAL and do not put this responsibility on PMDs.
>
Hi Hemant.
> [Hemant] A common/default scan function can be added, provided at least one or more PMD driver support it.
> w.r.t Jan's original scan function, it was not suitable for any of the NXP SoC's whether ARM or PowerPC.
>
> Unable to validate the Jan's scan function on a real platform, we have skipped it for next phase.
> Addition of a default scan function can only be done in next phase, when we find a suitable SoC PMD driver supporting it.
Quite frankly, the situation is same for me. I still have no clue about
your approach which seems to be pretty non-standard. I have no way how
to test it.
My approach can be tested on any Linux machine with platform devices
and device-tree enabled. You would see that I detect those devices (I
don't mean any certain network device, I mean all platform devices) and
if you provide a driver with a proper compatible string it will be set
for you.
I presume that I don't have any upstreamable PMD for this at the moment.
From the very generic scan approach, I cannot see, what kernel
infrastructure are you going to use. We should support at least the
VFIO-platform which is standard and with IOMMU, it is considered secure.
Any other approach would require an out-of-tree kernel driver or some
non-secure access to devices. I don't say it is very wrong, but we
should be careful about this.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> > detect the devices. This is because SoC may require specific or
> > > >> > additional info for device detection. Further, SoC may have
> > > >> > embedded
> > > >
> > > > Can you provide an example for "additional info for device detection"?
Can you?
Regards
Jan
[...]
--
Jan Viktorin E-mail: Viktorin at RehiveTech.com
System Architect Web: www.RehiveTech.com
RehiveTech
Brno, Czech Republic
More information about the dev
mailing list