Re: [PATCH net-next v1 3/3] hinic: add support to query function table

["luobin (L)" <luobin9@huawei.com>]

On 2020/8/29 1:19, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:16:22 +0800 luobin (L) wrote:
>> On 2020/8/28 3:44, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:13:21 +0800 Luo bin wrote:  
>>>> +	switch (idx) {
>>>> +	case VALID:
>>>> +		return funcfg_table_elem->dw0.bs.valid;
>>>> +	case RX_MODE:
>>>> +		return funcfg_table_elem->dw0.bs.nic_rx_mode;
>>>> +	case MTU:
>>>> +		return funcfg_table_elem->dw1.bs.mtu;
>>>> +	case VLAN_MODE:
>>>> +		return funcfg_table_elem->dw1.bs.vlan_mode;
>>>> +	case VLAN_ID:
>>>> +		return funcfg_table_elem->dw1.bs.vlan_id;
>>>> +	case RQ_DEPTH:
>>>> +		return funcfg_table_elem->dw13.bs.cfg_rq_depth;
>>>> +	case QUEUE_NUM:
>>>> +		return funcfg_table_elem->dw13.bs.cfg_q_num;  
>>>
>>> The first two patches look fairly unobjectionable to me, but here the
>>> information does not seem that driver-specific. What's vlan_mode, and
>>> vlan_id in the context of PF? Why expose mtu, is it different than
>>> netdev mtu? What's valid? rq_depth?
>>> .
>>>   
>> The vlan_mode and vlan_id in function table are provided for VF in QinQ scenario
>> and they are useless for PF. Querying VF's function table is unsupported now, so
>> there is no need to expose vlan_id and vlan mode and I'll remove them in my next
>> patchset. The function table is saved in hw and we expose the mtu to ensure the
>> mtu saved in hw is same with netdev mtu. The valid filed indicates whether this
>> function is enabled or not and the hw can judge whether the RQ buffer in host is
>> sufficient by comparing the values of rq depth, pi and ci.
> 
> Queue depth is definitely something we can add to the ethtool API.
> You already expose raw producer and consumer indexes so the calculation
> can be done, anyway.
> .
> 
Okay, I'll remove the queue depth as well. Thanks for your review.