lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Synopsys Ethernet QoS Driver
Date


> 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.

- 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-21 14:29    [W:0.123 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site