On 1/23/2024 11:27 AM, Chaoyong He wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com> >>>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 11:09 PM >>>> To: Chaoyong He <chaoyong...@corigine.com>; dev@dpdk.org >>>> Cc: oss-drivers <oss-driv...@corigine.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] optimize the firmware loading process >>>> >>>> On 1/15/2024 2:54 AM, Chaoyong He wrote: >>>>> This patch series aims to speedup the DPDK application start by >>>>> optimize the firmware loading process in sereval places. >>>>> We also simplify the port name in multiple PF firmware case to make >>>>> the customer happy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> <...> >>>> >>>>> net/nfp: add the elf module >>>>> net/nfp: reload the firmware only when firmware changed >>>> >>>> Above commit adds elf parser capability and second one loads firmware >>>> when build time is different. >>>> >>>> I can see this is an optimization effort, to understand FW status >>>> before loading FW, but relying on build time seems fragile. Does it >>>> help to add a new section to store version information and evaluate based >> on this information? >>>> >>> >>> We have a branch of firmware (several app type combined with >>> NFD3/NFDk) with the same version information(monthly publish), so the >> version information can't help us, because we can't distinguish among them. >>> >>> But the build time is different for every firmware, and that's the reason we >> choose it. >>> >> >> If version is same although FW itself is different, isn't this problem on >> its own? >> Perhaps an additional field is required in version syntax. > > Actually, it's just the role the build time which embed in the firmware > plays, which is unique for every firmware, and which can't be modified once > the firmware was published. >
I see it is already in the elf binary but relying on build time of a FW to decide to load it or not looks a weak method to me, and fragile as stated before. > What you said also has its mean, but in practice we can't accept(at least > can't do it immediately), which needs to discuss with firmware team. > As it is an optimization I assume it is not urgent, so would you mind discussing the issue with the FW team, perhaps it can lead to a better solution, we can proceed after that. Meanwhile I will continue with remaining patches, excluding these two patches. > If you insist that we should change the design, maybe we can just kick off > two commits, and upstream the other commits? > - net/nfp: add the elf module > - net/nfp: reload the firmware only when firmware changed
