Thank you, will wait for updated documentation and release notes.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Li, Xiaoyun
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 10:49 AM
> To: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.vargh...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
> <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming
> <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 02/19] net/ice: support device initialization
>
> Yes.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Varghese, Vipin
> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 13:14
> > To: Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
> > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming
> > <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 02/19] net/ice: support device
> > initialization
> >
> > Thanks for the update, so we can assume all functions are available in
> secondary.
> > If not supported it will return right error code and documentation is
> > updated for the limitation too.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Li, Xiaoyun
> > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 10:40 AM
> > > To: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.vargh...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
> > > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming
> > > <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 02/19] net/ice: support device
> > > initialization
> > >
> > > 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>
