On 1/22/21 8:25 AM, 谢华伟(此时此刻） wrote:
>
> On 2021/1/21 23:38, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>> Do you mean we apply or abandon patch 3? I am both OK. The first
>>> priority to me is to enable MMIO bar support.
>> OK, so yes, I think we should abandon patch 2 and patch 3.
>> For patch 1, it looks valid to me, but I'll let Ferruh decide.
>>
>> For your device, if my understanding is correct, what we need to do is
>> to support MMIO for legacy devices. Correct?
> yes.
>> If so, the change should be in virtio_pci.c. In vtpci_init(), after
>> modern detection has failed, we should check the the BAR is PIO or MMIO
>> based on the flag. the result can be saved in struct virtio_pci_dev.
>>
>>
>> We would introduce new wrappers like vtpci_legacy_read,
>> vtpci_legacy_write that would either call rte_pci_ioport_read,
>> rte_pci_ioport_read in case of PIO, or rte_read32, rte_write32 in case
>> of MMIO.
>
> There are two choices.
>
> 1, apply patch 2.
>
> IO/MMIO port are mapped and accessed using the same API. Kernel is
> doing in the same way like the following.
>
> io_addr = pci_iomap
>
> get PIO directly or ioremap
>
> iowrite16/32(val, io_addr + offset)
>
> I think applying patch 2 is a correct choice. It is a fix. Driver had
> better not know if bar is PIO or MMIO. ioport in ioport_xx API means
> IO, not PIO.
>
> Btw, it only affects virtio PMD, not that intrusive.
>
> 2, virtio specific change to enable MMIO support.
>
> Comparing with choice 1, i feels it is not that clean and pretty.
OK, that makes sense. I am OK with keeping patch 2, but would like
Ferruh's ACK.
Could you please post v6?
Thanks,
Maxime
>>
>> It is not too late for this release, as the change will not be that
>> intrusive. But if you prepare such patch, please base it on top of my
>> virtio rework series; To make it easier to you, I added it to the dpdk-
>> next-virtio tree:
>> https://git.dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-virtio/log/?h=virtio_pmd_rework_v2
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Maxime
>>
>
