> On 3/6/2023 7:06 AM, Chaoyong He wrote:
> >> On 2/21/2023 6:29 AM, Chaoyong He wrote:
> >>> From: James Hershaw <james.hers...@corigine.com>
> >>>
> >>> Due to changes in the firmware for NFPs, firmware will no longer
> >>> write the link speed of a port to the control BAR. In line with the
> >>> behaviour of the kernel NFP driver, this is now handled by the PMD
> >>> by reading the value provided by the NSP in the nfp_eth_table struct
> >>> within the pf_dev of the port and subsequently writing this value to
> >>> the
> >> control BAR.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Don't you need some kind of FW version check to figure out if
> >> 'NFP_NET_CFG_STS_NSP_LINK_RATE' needs to be updated by driver or
> not?
> >>
> >> How do you manage driver <-> FW dependency?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: James Hershaw <james.hers...@corigine.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderl...@corigine.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Chaoyong He <chaoyong...@corigine.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> ----
> >> ---
> >>> drivers/net/nfp/nfp_ctrl.h | 9 ++++
> >>> 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.c
> >>> b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.c index 5922bfea8e..006ea58008
> 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_common.c
> >>> @@ -52,6 +52,53 @@
> >>> #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> >>> #include <errno.h>
> >>>
> >>> +static const uint32_t nfp_net_link_speed_nfp2rte[] = {
> >>> + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNSUPPORTED] =
> >> RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE,
> >>> + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN] =
> >> RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE,
> >>> + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_1G] =
> >> RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_1G,
> >>> + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_10G] =
> >> RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_10G,
> >>> + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_25G] =
> >> RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_25G,
> >>> + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_40G] =
> >> RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G,
> >>> + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_50G] =
> >> RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_50G,
> >>> + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_100G] =
> >> RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_100G,
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +static uint32_t
> >>> +nfp_net_link_speed_rte2nfp(uint32_t speed) {
> >>> + uint32_t i;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < RTE_DIM(nfp_net_link_speed_nfp2rte); i++) {
> >>> + if (speed == nfp_net_link_speed_nfp2rte[i])
> >>> + return i;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + return NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static void
> >>> +nfp_net_notify_port_speed(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) {
> >>> + struct nfp_net_hw *hw;
> >>> + struct nfp_eth_table *eth_table;
> >>> + uint32_t nn_link_status;
> >>> +
> >>> + hw = NFP_NET_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data->dev_private);
> >>> + eth_table = hw->pf_dev->nfp_eth_table;
> >>> +
> >>> + nn_link_status = nn_cfg_readl(hw, NFP_NET_CFG_STS);
> >>> + nn_link_status = (nn_link_status >>
> >> NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_SHIFT) &
> >>> + NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_MASK;
> >>> +
> >>> + if ((nn_link_status & NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK) == 0) {
> >>> + nn_cfg_writel(hw, NFP_NET_CFG_STS_NSP_LINK_RATE,
> >> NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN);
> >>> + return;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + nn_cfg_writel(hw, NFP_NET_CFG_STS_NSP_LINK_RATE,
> >>> + nfp_net_link_speed_rte2nfp(eth_table->ports[hw-
> >>> idx].speed));
> >>
> >> PF driver writes link speed to 'NFP_NET_CFG_STS_NSP_LINK_RATE'
> >> register, but 'nfp_net_link_update()' still gets it from 'NFP_NET_CFG_STS'
> >> register (via 'nfp_net_link_speed_nfp2rte[nn_link_status]').
> >>
> >> Shouldn't 'nfp_net_link_update()' needs to be updated to read speed
> >> from 'NFP_NET_CFG_STS_NSP_LINK_RATE' register?
> >
> > Sorry for the late response, we spend a lot of time to check and discuss.
> >
> > For older firmware, a full word is allocated (NFP_NET_CFG_STS) to report
> link status and port speed to the driver.
> > However, in the interests of keeping FW files port-speed agnostic in
> > the future, the upper 16 bits are no longer written to by FW, so we write
> the speed to that address (NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE).
> > The lower 16 bits (link status) are still handled by firmware.
> >
>
> But 'nfp_net_link_update()' still gets the links speed from lower 16 bits.
> Probably I am missing something but please let me understand.
>
>
> link_update() notify_port_speed()
> read(speed) writel(speed)
> ▲ │
> │ │
> │ │
> ┌┴─────────────────────────┐▼──
> ──────────────────────┐
> │ │ │
> │ │ LINK_RATE │
> └──────────────────────────┴───
> ──────────────────────┘
> 0x34 0x36
> │ │
> └──────────────── CFG_STS ──────────
> ─────────────────┘
>
>
> Or is it something like when you update upper half of the register, FW reads
> it and reflects the value to the lower half of the register?
>
>
> And since 'NFP_NET_CFG_STS_NSP_LINK_RATE' is 16 bits, is it correct to use
> 'nn_cfg_writel()' to update it?
>
Oh, yes, thanks for your careful review, here we do make a mistake, sorry for
that.
We'll send a v2 patch with the right 16bits read/write api soon, thanks again.
> > These changes are completely backwards compatible with older firmware
> versions, so no FW version check is required.
>
> ack
