On 3/2/2023 11:24 AM, Liu, Mingxia wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 5:31 PM
>> To: Liu, Mingxia <mingxia....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Xing, Beilei
>> <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhang, Yuying <yuying.zh...@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 01/21] net/cpfl: support device initialization
>>
>> On 3/2/2023 10:35 AM, Mingxia Liu wrote:
>>> Support device init and add the following dev ops:
>>> - dev_configure
>>> - dev_close
>>> - dev_infos_get
>>> - link_update
>>> - dev_supported_ptypes_get
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mingxia Liu <mingxia....@intel.com>
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/cpfl.rst
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
>>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
>>> + Copyright(c) 2022 Intel Corporation.
>>> +
>>
>> s/2022/2023
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> +static int
>>> +cpfl_pci_probe(struct rte_pci_driver *pci_drv __rte_unused,
>>> + struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev) {
>>> + struct cpfl_vport_param vport_param;
>>> + struct cpfl_adapter_ext *adapter;
>>> + struct cpfl_devargs devargs;
>>> + char name[RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN];
>>> + int i, retval;
>>> + bool first_probe = false;
>>> +
>>> + if (!cpfl_adapter_list_init) {
>>> + rte_spinlock_init(&cpfl_adapter_lock);
>>> + TAILQ_INIT(&cpfl_adapter_list);
>>> + cpfl_adapter_list_init = true;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + adapter = cpfl_find_adapter_ext(pci_dev);
>>> + if (adapter == NULL) {
>>> + first_probe = true;
>>> + adapter = rte_zmalloc("cpfl_adapter_ext",
>>> + sizeof(struct cpfl_adapter_ext), 0);
>>> + if (adapter == NULL) {
>>> + PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to allocate adapter.");
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + retval = cpfl_adapter_ext_init(pci_dev, adapter);
>>> + if (retval != 0) {
>>> + PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to init adapter.");
>>> + return retval;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + rte_spinlock_lock(&cpfl_adapter_lock);
>>> + TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&cpfl_adapter_list, adapter, next);
>>> + rte_spinlock_unlock(&cpfl_adapter_lock);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + retval = cpfl_parse_devargs(pci_dev, adapter, &devargs);
>>> + if (retval != 0) {
>>> + PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to parse private devargs");
>>> + goto err;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (devargs.req_vport_nb == 0) {
>>> + /* If no vport devarg, create vport 0 by default. */
>>> + vport_param.adapter = adapter;
>>> + vport_param.devarg_id = 0;
>>> + vport_param.idx = cpfl_vport_idx_alloc(adapter);
>>> + if (vport_param.idx == CPFL_INVALID_VPORT_IDX) {
>>> + PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "No space for vport %u",
>> vport_param.devarg_id);
>>> + return 0;
>>> + }
>>> + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "cpfl_%s_vport_0",
>>> + pci_dev->device.name);
>>> + retval = rte_eth_dev_create(&pci_dev->device, name,
>>> + sizeof(struct idpf_vport),
>>> + NULL, NULL, cpfl_dev_vport_init,
>>> + &vport_param);
>>> + if (retval != 0)
>>> + PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to create default vport
>> 0");
>>> + } else {
>>> + for (i = 0; i < devargs.req_vport_nb; i++) {
>>> + vport_param.adapter = adapter;
>>> + vport_param.devarg_id = devargs.req_vports[i];
>>> + vport_param.idx = cpfl_vport_idx_alloc(adapter);
>>> + if (vport_param.idx == CPFL_INVALID_VPORT_IDX) {
>>> + PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "No space for
>> vport %u", vport_param.devarg_id);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "cpfl_%s_vport_%d",
>>> + pci_dev->device.name,
>>> + devargs.req_vports[i]);
>>> + retval = rte_eth_dev_create(&pci_dev->device,
>> name,
>>> + sizeof(struct idpf_vport),
>>> + NULL, NULL,
>> cpfl_dev_vport_init,
>>> + &vport_param);
>>> + if (retval != 0)
>>> + PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to create
>> vport %d",
>>> + vport_param.devarg_id);
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> +err:
>>> + if (first_probe) {
>>> + rte_spinlock_lock(&cpfl_adapter_lock);
>>> + TAILQ_REMOVE(&cpfl_adapter_list, adapter, next);
>>> + rte_spinlock_unlock(&cpfl_adapter_lock);
>>> + cpfl_adapter_ext_deinit(adapter);
>>> + rte_free(adapter);
>>> + }
>>
>> Is 'first_probe' left intentionally? If so, what is the reason to have this
>> condition?
> [beileix] It's related to create vports at runtime, this feature will be
> implemented in the future, but now it doesn't suppor.
is it possible to remove it now and add back when needed? This is
confusing as it is.
