> 21 nov. 2016 kl. 13:53 skrev Giuseppe CAVALLARO <peppe.cavall...@st.com>: > > Hello Joao > >> On 11/21/2016 1:32 PM, Joao Pinto wrote: >> Hello, >> >>> On 21-11-2016 05:29, Rayagond Kokatanur wrote: >>>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Rabin Vincent <ra...@rab.in> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:20:27PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote: >>>>> For now we are interesting in improving the synopsys QoS driver under >>>>> /nect/ethernet/synopsys. For now the driver structure consists of a >>>>> single file >>>>> called dwc_eth_qos.c, containing synopsys ethernet qos common ops and >>>>> platform >>>>> related stuff. >>>>> >>>>> Our strategy would be: >>>>> >>>>> a) Implement a platform glue driver (dwc_eth_qos_pltfm.c) >>>>> b) Implement a pci glue driver (dwc_eth_qos_pci.c) >>>>> c) Implement a "core driver" (dwc_eth_qos.c) that would only have >>>>> Ethernet QoS >>>>> related stuff to be reused by the platform / pci drivers >>>>> d) Add a set of features to the "core driver" that we have available >>>>> internally >>>> >>>> Note that there are actually two drivers in mainline for this hardware: >>>> >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/synopsis/ >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/ >>> >>> Yes the later driver (drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/) supports >>> both 3.x and 4.x. It has glue layer for pci, platform, core etc, >>> please refer this driver once before you start. >>> >>> You can start adding missing feature of 4.x in stmmac driver. >> >> Thanks you all for all the info. >> Well, I think we are in a good position to organize the ethernet drivers >> concerning Synopsys IPs. >> >> First of all, in my opinion, it does not make sense to have a >> ethernet/synopsis >> (typo :)) when ethernet/stmicro is also for a synopsys IP. If we have another >> vendor using the same IP it should be able to reuse the commonn operations. >> But >> I would put that discussion for later :) >> >> For now I suggest that for we create ethernet/qos and create there a folder >> called dwc (designware controller) where all the synopsys qos IP specific >> code >> in order to be reused for example by ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/. We just have >> to >> figure out a clean interface for "client drivers" like stmmac to interact >> with >> the new qos driver. >> >> What do you think about this approach? > > The stmmac drivers run since many years on several platforms > (sh4, stm32, arm, x86, mips ...) and it supports an huge of amount of > configurations starting from 3.1x to 3.7x databooks. > > It also supports QoS hardware; for example, 4.00a, 4.10a and 4.20a > are fully working. > > Also the stmmac has platform, device-tree and pcie supports and > a lot of maintained glue-logic files. > > It is fully documented inside the kernel tree. > > I am happy to have new enhancements from other developers. > So, on my side, if you want to spend your time on improving it on your > platforms please feel free to do it! > > Concerning the stmicro/stmmac naming, these come from a really old > story and have no issue to adopt new folder/file names. > > I am also open to merge fixes and changes from ethernet/synopsis. > I want to point you on some benchmarks made by Alex some months ago > (IIRC) that showed an stmmac winner (due to the several optimizations > analyzed and reviewed in this mailing list). > > Peppe >
Hello Joao and others, As the maintainer of dwc_eth_qos.c I prefer also that we put efforts on the most mature driver, the stmmac. I hope that the code can migrate into an ethernet/synopsys folder to keep the convention of naming the folder after the vendor. This makes it easy for others to find the driver. The dwc_eth_qos.c will eventually be removed and its DT binding interface can then be implemented in the stmmac driver. - Lars >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> (See http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2016/02/29/127) >>>> >>>> The former only supports 4.x of the hardware. >>>> >>>> The later supports 4.x and 3.x and already has a platform glue driver >>>> with support for several platforms, a PCI glue driver, and a core driver >>>> with several features not present in the former (for example: TX/RX >>>> interrupt coalescing, EEE, PTP). >>>> >>>> Have you evaluated both drivers? Why have you decided to work on the >>>> former rather than the latter? >>> >>> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >
