Re: Synopsys Ethernet QoS Driver

[Giuseppe CAVALLARO <peppe.cavallaro@st.com>]

On 11/21/2016 2:28 PM, Lars Persson wrote:
>
>
>> 21 nov. 2016 kl. 13:53 skrev Giuseppe CAVALLARO <peppe.cavallaro@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 <rabin@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.

Thanks Lars, I will be happy to support all you on this transition
and I agree on renaming all.

peppe


> - 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>