lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 3/4] fpga: dfl: add basic support for DFHv1


On Thu, 12 Jan 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:13:31AM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
>> On 2023-01-10 at 14:07:16 -0800, matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 04:30:28PM -0800, matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com>
>
> ...
>
>>>>> v10: change dfh_find_param to return size of parameter data in bytes
>>>>
>>>> The problem that might occur with this approach is byte ordering.
>>>> When we have u64 items, we know that they all are placed in CPU
>>>> ordering by the bottom layer. What's the contract now? Can it be
>>>> a problematic? Please double check this (always keep in mind BE32
>>>> as most interesting case for u64/unsigned long representation and
>>>> other possible byte ordering outcomes).
>>>
>>> A number of u64 items certainly states explicit alignment of the memory, but
>>> I think byte ordering is a different issue.
>>>
>>> The bottom layer, by design, is still enforcing a number u64 items under the
>>> hood. So the contract has not changed. Changing units of size from u64s to
>>> bytes was suggested to match the general practice of size of memory being in
>>> bytes. I think the suggestion was made because the return type for
>>> dfh_find_param() changed from u64* to void* in version 9, when indirectly
>>> returning the size of the parameter data was introduced. So a void * with a
>>> size in bytes makes sense. On the other hand, returning a u64 * is a more
>>> precise reflection of the data alignment. I think the API should be as
>>
>> I prefer (void *) + bytes. The properties in the parameter block are not
>> guarateed to be u64 for each, e.g. the REG_LAYOUT, so (void *) could better
>> indicate it is not. It is just a block of data unknown to DFL core and to
>> be parsed by drivers.
>
> If the hardware / protocol is capable of communicating the arbitrary lengths
> of parameters, then yes, bytes make sense. But this should be clear what byte
> ordering is there if the items can be words / dwords / qwords.

The hardware does communicate the arbitrary lengths of the parameter data;
so bytes make sense. I will update Documentation/fpga/dfl.rst to
explicitly say that multi-byte quantities are little-endian.

>
> TL;DR: The Q is: Is the parameter block a byte stream? If yes, then your
> proposal is okay. If no, no void * should be used. In the latter it should
> be union of possible items or a like as defined by a protocol.

The parameter block is not a byte stream; so void * should be used.

Thanks,
Matthew Gerlach


>
>> And why users/drivers need to care about the alignment of the parameter
>> block?
>>
>>> follows:
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:37    [W:0.059 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site