05/10/2017 23:55, Mokhtar, Amr:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> > 03/10/2017 16:29, Mokhtar, Amr:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> > > > 25/08/2017 15:46, Amr Mokhtar:
> > > > > +int
> > > > > +rte_bbdev_configure(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t num_queues,
> > > > > + const struct rte_bbdev_conf *conf);
> > > >
> > > > I am not convinced by the "configure all" function in ethdev.
> > > > We break the ABI each time we add a new feature to configure.
> > > > And it does not really help to have all configurations in one struct.
> > > > Would you mind to split the struct rte_bbdev_conf and split the
> > > > function accordingly?
> > >
> > > There is nothing to split tbh. The only parameter it has is the socket_id.
> > > And in fact, it's optional, can be null. The only config we need is
> > > num_queues.
> >
> > Indeed, there is nothing in this struct.
> > If you need only to allocate queues, you just have to rename this function.
> >
> > > I don't see in the near future that we may need to add more config params.
> > > As a side, in the time of the implementation we were trying to avoid
> > > any diversions from the current design ideology of ethdev and cryptodev.
> >
> > There is no ideology in ethdev, just some mistakes ;)
> >
> > > Can we leave it for consideration with future releases?
> >
> > No it should be addressed from the beginning.
> >
> > When you will need to add something more to configure port-wise, you should
> > add a new function instead of breaking the ABI of the global conf struct.
> > That's why the configure option should be more specialized.
> >
> > Distro people were complaining about ABI breakage last week.
> > This is exactly an example of how to avoid it from the beginning.
> >
>
> Ok, got your point. I was looking at it from an API-only standpoint.
> How about modifying it into?
> int
> rte_bbdev_setup_queues(uint16_t dev_id, uint16_t num_queues, int socket_id);
Yes OK
[...]
> > > > > +struct __rte_cache_aligned rte_bbdev {
> > > > > + rte_bbdev_enqueue_ops_t enqueue_ops; /**< Enqueue function */
> > > > > + rte_bbdev_dequeue_ops_t dequeue_ops; /**< Dequeue function */
> > > > > + const struct rte_bbdev_ops *dev_ops; /**< Functions exported by
> > > > > +PMD
> > > > */
> > > > > + struct rte_bbdev_data *data; /**< Pointer to device data */
> > > > > + bool attached; /**< If device is currently attached or not */
> > > >
> > > > What "attached" means?
> > > > I'm afraid you are trying to manage hotplug in the wrong layer.
> > >
> > > Hotplug is not supported in the current release.
> >
> > It is not answering the question.
> > What is an "attached" device?
>
> "Attached" means that the PCI device was probed and the bbdev device slot is
> allocated.
> For software devices, means that a virtual bbdev device (vdev) is allocated
> for bbdev.
> Same way the "attached" approach used in cryptodev.
Not sure to understand.
If "attached" means "allocated", when is it false?
[...]
> > > > > +/** Structure specifying a single operation */ struct rte_bbdev_op {
> > > > > + enum rte_bbdev_op_type type; /**< Type of this operation */
> > > > > + int status; /**< Status of operation that was performed */
> > > > > + struct rte_mempool *mempool; /**< Mempool which op instance is
> > > > > +in
> > > > */
> > > > > + void *opaque_data; /**< Opaque pointer for user data */
> > > > > + /**
> > > > > + * Anonymous union of operation-type specific parameters. When
> > > > allocated
> > > > > + * using rte_bbdev_op_pool_create(), space is allocated for the
> > > > > + * parameters at the end of each rte_bbdev_op structure, and the
> > > > > + * pointers here point to it.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + RTE_STD_C11
> > > > > + union {
> > > > > + void *generic;
> > > > > + struct rte_bbdev_op_turbo_dec *turbo_dec;
> > > > > + struct rte_bbdev_op_turbo_enc *turbo_enc;
> > > > > + };
> > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure it is a good idea to fit every operations in the same
> > > > struct and the same functions.
> > >
> > > Due to the fact that our design adopts this idea that a device can
> > > support both the encode and decode operations.
> > > Then, at the time of PMD registration, the enqueue functions is allocated.
> > > This enqueue() function is common for both operations.
> > > This fitted operation structure is essential for the driver to decide on
> > > the
> > operation.
> >
> > Sorry I do not understand why you must have a "generic operation".
> > Please, could you try again to explain this design to someone not fully
> > understanding how turbo enc/dec works?
>
> Oh, sorry, I was not paying attention that you're referring to "void *generic"
> It is just a place-holder for any other operation types. Can be removed if
> you like.
No I was not referring to void *generic.
It is the same question as in the RFC.
I don't understand the benefit of grouping different things in an union.
