[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 01/20] net/ice: add base code

[Lu, Wenzhuo]

Hi Vipin,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Varghese, Vipin
> Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 12:19 PM
> To: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 01/20] net/ice: add base code
> 
> Snipped
> 
> > +Intel® ICE driver
> > +==================
> > +
> > +This directory contains source code of FreeBSD ice driver of version
> > +2018.10.30 released by the team which develops basic drivers for any
> > +ice NIC. The directory of base/ contains the original source package.
> > +This driver is valid for the product(s) listed below
> > +
> > +* Intel® Ethernet Network Adapters E810
> > +
> > +Updating the driver
> > +===================
> > +
> > +NOTE: The source code in this directory should not be modified apart
> > +from the following file(s):
> > +
> > +    ice_osdep.h
> 
> I this README persistent in upcoming releases of 'driver/net/ice'?
Yes.
> 
> Snipped
> 
> > +/* Manage MAC address, write command - direct (0x0108) */ struct
> > +ice_aqc_manage_mac_write {
> > +	u8 port_num;
> > +	u8 flags;
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_WR_MC_MAG_EN		BIT(0)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_WR_WOL_LAA_PFR_KEEP	BIT(1)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_WR_S		6
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_WR_M		(3 <<
> > ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_WR_S)
> 
> Is this value '3' or 'BIT(3)'?
It's 3.
> 
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_UPDATE_LAA	0
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_UPDATE_LAA_WOL	(BIT(0) <<
> > ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_WR_S)
> 
> Can the code be rearranged for?
We don’t want to change the base code for the sake of maintenance.

> 
> #define ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_WR_S		6
> #define ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_UPDATE_LAA	0
> #define ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_WR_M		(3 <<
> ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_WR_S)
> #define ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_UPDATE_LAA_WOL	(BIT(0) <<
> ICE_AQC_MAN_MAC_WR_S)
> 
> Snipped
> 
> > +/* Each entry in the response buffer is of the following type: */
> > +struct ice_aqc_get_sw_cfg_resp_elem {
> > +	/* VSI/Port Number */
> > +	__le16 vsi_port_num;
> > +#define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_VSI_PORT_NUM_S	0
> > +#define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_VSI_PORT_NUM_M	\
> > +			(0x3FF <<
> > ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_VSI_PORT_NUM_S)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_TYPE_S	14
> > +#define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_TYPE_M	(0x3 <<
> > ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_TYPE_S)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_PHYS_PORT	0
> > +#define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_VIRT_PORT	1
> > +#define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_VSI		2
> > +
> 
> Can the code be rearranged for?
The same as above.

> 
> #define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_VSI_PORT_NUM_S	0
> #define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_TYPE_S	14
> #define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_VSI_PORT_NUM_M	\
> 			(0x3FF <<
> ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_VSI_PORT_NUM_S)
> #define ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_TYPE_M	(0x3 <<
> ICE_AQC_GET_SW_CONF_RESP_TYPE_S)
> 
> snipped
> 
>  +
> > +struct ice_aqc_get_phy_caps_data {
> > +	__le64 phy_type_low; /* Use values from ICE_PHY_TYPE_LOW_* */
> > +	__le64 reserved;
> > +	u8 caps;
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EN_TX_LINK_PAUSE			BIT(0)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EN_RX_LINK_PAUSE			BIT(1)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_LOW_POWER_MODE			BIT(2)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EN_LINK				BIT(3)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_AN_MODE				BIT(4)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EN_MOD_QUAL				BIT(5)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EN_LESM				BIT(6)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EN_AUTO_FEC				BIT(7)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_CAPS_MASK
> > 	MAKEMASK(0xff, 0)
> > +	u8 low_power_ctrl;
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EN_D3COLD_LOW_POWER_AUTONEG
> 	BIT(0)
> > +	__le16 eee_cap;
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EEE_EN_100BASE_TX			BIT(0)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EEE_EN_1000BASE_T			BIT(1)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EEE_EN_10GBASE_T			BIT(2)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EEE_EN_1000BASE_KX			BIT(3)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EEE_EN_10GBASE_KR			BIT(4)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EEE_EN_25GBASE_KR			BIT(5)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_EEE_EN_40GBASE_KR4			BIT(6)
> > +	__le16 eeer_value;
> > +	u8 phy_id_oui[4]; /* PHY/Module ID connected on the port */
> > +	u8 phy_fw_ver[8];
> > +	u8 link_fec_options;
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_FEC_10G_KR_40G_KR4_EN		BIT(0)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_FEC_10G_KR_40G_KR4_REQ		BIT(1)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_FEC_25G_RS_528_REQ			BIT(2)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_FEC_25G_KR_REQ			BIT(3)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_FEC_25G_RS_544_REQ			BIT(4)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_FEC_25G_RS_CLAUSE91_EN		BIT(6)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_FEC_25G_KR_CLAUSE74_EN		BIT(7)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_PHY_FEC_MASK
> > 	MAKEMASK(0xdf, 0)
> > +	u8 extended_compliance_code;
> > +#define ICE_MODULE_TYPE_TOTAL_BYTE			3
> > +	u8 module_type[ICE_MODULE_TYPE_TOTAL_BYTE];
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MOD_TYPE_BYTE0_SFP_PLUS			0xA0
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MOD_TYPE_BYTE0_QSFP_PLUS		0x80
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MOD_TYPE_BYTE1_SFP_PLUS_CU_PASSIVE	BIT(0)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MOD_TYPE_BYTE1_SFP_PLUS_CU_ACTIVE	BIT(1)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MOD_TYPE_BYTE1_10G_BASE_SR		BIT(4)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MOD_TYPE_BYTE1_10G_BASE_LR		BIT(5)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MOD_TYPE_BYTE1_10G_BASE_LRM		BIT(6)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MOD_TYPE_BYTE1_10G_BASE_ER		BIT(7)
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MOD_TYPE_BYTE2_SFP_PLUS			0xA0
> > +#define ICE_AQC_MOD_TYPE_BYTE2_QSFP_PLUS		0x86
> > +	u8 qualified_module_count;
> > +#define ICE_AQC_QUAL_MOD_COUNT_MAX			16
> > +	struct {
> > +		u8 v_oui[3];
> > +		u8 rsvd3;
> > +		u8 v_part[16];
> > +		__le32 v_rev;
> > +		__le64 rsvd8;
> > +	} qual_modules[ICE_AQC_QUAL_MOD_COUNT_MAX];
> > +};
> > +
> 
> Does the NIC support physical loopback? I am not able to find here.
Not sure about it. But no plan for this at this stage.

> 
> > +#define ICE_AQ_PHY_ENA_LOW_POWER	BIT(2)
> 
> Does Low Power PMD is exposed to DPDK? If yes, can you mention the
> performance numbers or variance in Release documents?
No plan for it at this release.

> 
> Snipped
> 
> > +
> > +/* Memory types */
> > +enum ice_memset_type {
> > +	ICE_NONDMA_MEM = 0,
> > +	ICE_DMA_MEM
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* Memcpy types */
> > +enum ice_memcpy_type {
> > +	ICE_NONDMA_TO_NONDMA = 0,
> > +	ICE_NONDMA_TO_DMA,
> > +	ICE_DMA_TO_DMA,
> > +	ICE_DMA_TO_NONDMA
> > +};
> > +
> 
> Is this exposed to user (rte_eth_dev) API? If yes, can you please let know the
> performance impact in RX|TX in release notes too.
No plan for it at this release.
> 
> Snipped
> 
> Suggestion: patch 01/20 is bit too long
Discussing in another thread.