On 11/2/2021 11:11 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:58 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
On 11/2/2021 4:32 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:32 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
On 10/22/2021 12:56 PM, Tomasz Duszynski wrote:
Add initial support for baseband telemetry.
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Duszynski<tduszyn...@marvell.com>
---
v2:
- make bphy telemetry available only on platforms supporting baseband
- use platform types where possible
- remove unused header
drivers/common/cnxk/cnxk_telemetry_bphy.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++
Since the telemetry support is for 'raw/cnxk_bphy', why it is implemented
in common code, instead of driver?
It can be raw/cnxk_bphy, thought of keeping it in common due to
1) To reuse it for another common code consumer
Is it reusable, since the code is to get telemetry data from raw device?
Yes. I meant, common code is reused on another library that has
telemetry support too.
2) roc_bphy_sso_pf_func_get() and roc_bphy_npa_pf_func_get() manged by
common code. aka there is no reverse dependency on the raw driver framework
in common code.
If telemetry code moved to raw driver, dependency will be from driver to
common code, which is correct dependency order I think.
It just looks wrong to have rawdev related telemetry function in the common
code, but I may be missing details, trying to understand.
Currently, we are doing like this:
- implementing HW specific telemetry endpoints in driver/common/cnxk
- ethdev/mempool/eventdev/cryptodev driver-specific telemetry endpoint
in driver/.../cnxk.
The criteria for deciding what is the second category is, if it uses
any ethdev/mempool/eventdev/cryptodev/rawdev
symbols or if telemetry-related raw dev driver implementation details.
i.e common code does not have
any raw driver dependency.
Got it, so I am proceeding as it is.
