[PATCH v7 05/12] net/nfp: add flower PF setup and mempool init logic

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 9/6/2022 9:45 AM, Chaoyong He wrote:
> CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at xilinx.com>
>> Sent: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:42 PM
>> To: Chaoyong He <chaoyong.he at corigine.com>; dev at dpdk.org
>> Cc: oss-drivers <oss-drivers at corigine.com>; Niklas Soderlund
>> <niklas.soderlund at corigine.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/12] net/nfp: add flower PF setup and mempool
>> init logic
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 11:22 AM, Chaoyong He wrote:
>>> Adds the vNIC initialization logic for the flower PF vNIC.  The flower
>>> firmware exposes this vNIC for the purposes of fallback traffic in the
>>> switchdev use-case. The logic of setting up this vNIC is similar to
>>> the logic seen in nfp_net_init() and nfp_net_start().
>>>
>>> Adds minimal dev_ops for this PF device. Because the device is being
>>> exposed externally to DPDK it should also be configured using DPDK
>>> helpers like rte_eth_configure(). For these helpers to work the flower
>>> logic needs to implements a minimal set of dev_ops. The Rx and Tx
>>> logic for this vNIC will be added in a subsequent commit.
>>>
>>> OVS expects incoming packets coming into the OVS datapath to be
>>> allocated from a mempool that contains objects of type "struct
>>> dp_packet". For the PF handling the slowpath into OVS it should use a
>>> mempool that is compatible with OVS. This commit adds the logic to
>>> create the OVS compatible mempool. It adds certain OVS specific
>>> structs to be able to instantiate the mempool.
>>>
>>
>> Can you please elaborate what is OVS compatible mempool?
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> +static inline struct nfp_app_flower * nfp_app_flower_priv_get(struct
>>> +nfp_pf_dev *pf_dev) {
>>> +   if (pf_dev == NULL)
>>> +           return NULL;
>>> +   else if (pf_dev->app_id != NFP_APP_FLOWER_NIC)
>>> +           return NULL;
>>> +   else
>>> +           return (struct nfp_app_flower *)pf_dev->app_priv; }
>>> +
>>
>> What do you think to unify functions to get private data, instead of having a
>> function for each FW, it can be possible to have single one?
>>
> 
> At first, we use two macros for this, and Andrew advice change them to functions.
> ```
> #define NFP_APP_PRIV_TO_APP_NIC(app_priv)\
>          ((struct nfp_app_nic *)app_priv)
> 
> #define NFP_APP_PRIV_TO_APP_FLOWER(app_priv)\
>          ((struct nfp_app_flower *)app_priv)
> ```
> So your advice is we unify the functions into:
> ```
> static inline struct nfp_app_nic *
> nfp_app_priv_get(struct nfp_pf_dev *pf_dev)
> {
>          if (pf_dev == NULL)
>                  return NULL;
>          else if (pf_dev->app_id == NFP_APP_CORE_NIC ||
>                             pf_dev->app_id == NFP_APP_FLOWER_NIC)
>                  return pf_dev->app_priv;
>                else
>                             return NULL;
> }
> ```
> and convert the pointer type at where this function been called?


Since return pointer types are different, it should return "void *",

```
static inline void *
nfp_app_priv_get(struct nfp_pf_dev *pf_dev)
{
	if (pf_dev == NULL)
		return NULL;
	else if (pf_dev->app_id == NFP_APP_CORE_NIC ||
			pf_dev->app_id == NFP_APP_FLOWER_NIC)
		return pf_dev->app_priv;
	else
		return NULL;
}
```

And when assigning a pointer from "void *", no explicit cast is required.

```
struct nfp_app_flower *app_flower;

app_flower = nfp_app_priv_get(pf_dev);
```

I think this is better to have single function, instead of different 
helper function for each FW, but I would like to get @Andrew's comment too.


Btw, since 'nfp_app_nic*_priv_get' return 'NULL' now, should callers 
check for NULL, this may introduce too many checks, and if checks are 
not necessary, what is the benefit of the function against macro?