Hi Tom, > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 5:28 PM > To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chau...@intel.com>; Maxime Coquelin > <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; dev@dpdk.org; tho...@monjalon.net; > gak...@marvell.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; Vargas, Hernan > <hernan.var...@intel.com> > Cc: m...@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; > david.march...@redhat.com; step...@networkplumber.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200 > > > On 8/31/22 3:37 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote: > > Hi Thomas, Tom, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 12:26 PM > >> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chau...@intel.com>; Maxime Coquelin > >> <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; dev@dpdk.org; tho...@monjalon.net; > >> gak...@marvell.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; Vargas, Hernan > >> <hernan.var...@intel.com> > >> Cc: m...@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; > >> david.march...@redhat.com; step...@networkplumber.org > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200 > >> > >> > >> On 8/30/22 12:45 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote: > >>> Hi Maxime, > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:45 AM > >>>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chau...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > >>>> tho...@monjalon.net; gak...@marvell.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; > >>>> t...@redhat.com; Vargas, Hernan <hernan.var...@intel.com> > >>>> Cc: m...@ashroe.eu; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; > >>>> david.march...@redhat.com; step...@networkplumber.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] baseband/acc200 > >>>> > >>>> Hi Nicolas, > >>>> > >>>> On 7/12/22 15:48, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >>>>> Hi Nicolas, Hernan, > >>>>> > >>>>> (Adding Hernan in the recipients list) > >>>>> > >>>>> On 7/8/22 02:01, Nicolas Chautru wrote: > >>>>>> This is targeting 22.11 and includes the PMD for the integrated > >>>>>> accelerator on Intel Xeon SPR-EEC. > >>>>>> There is a dependency on that parallel serie still in-flight > >>>>>> which extends the bbdev api > >>>>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=23894 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I will be offline for a few weeks for the summer break but Hernan > >>>>>> will cover for me during that time if required. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> Nic > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nicolas Chautru (10): > >>>>>> baseband/acc200: introduce PMD for ACC200 > >>>>>> baseband/acc200: add HW register definitions > >>>>>> baseband/acc200: add info get function > >>>>>> baseband/acc200: add queue configuration > >>>>>> baseband/acc200: add LDPC processing functions > >>>>>> baseband/acc200: add LTE processing functions > >>>>>> baseband/acc200: add support for FFT operations > >>>>>> baseband/acc200: support interrupt > >>>>>> baseband/acc200: add device status and vf2pf comms > >>>>>> baseband/acc200: add PF configure companion function > >>>>>> > >>>>>> MAINTAINERS | 3 + > >>>>>> app/test-bbdev/meson.build | 3 + > >>>>>> app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 76 + > >>>>>> doc/guides/bbdevs/acc200.rst | 244 ++ > >>>>>> doc/guides/bbdevs/index.rst | 1 + > >>>>>> drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h | 468 +++ > >>>>>> drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pmd.h | 690 ++++ > >>>>>> drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_vf_enum.h | 89 + > >>>>>> drivers/baseband/acc200/meson.build | 8 + > >>>>>> drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_cfg.h | 115 + > >>>>>> drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_pmd.c | 5403 > >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>>>> drivers/baseband/acc200/version.map | 10 + > >>>>>> drivers/baseband/meson.build | 1 + > >>>>>> 13 files changed, 7111 insertions(+) > >>>>>> create mode 100644 doc/guides/bbdevs/acc200.rst > >>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h > >>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_pmd.h > >>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/acc200_vf_enum.h > >>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/meson.build > >>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_cfg.h > >>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/rte_acc200_pmd.c > >>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/baseband/acc200/version.map > >>>>>> > >>>>> Comparing ACC200 & ACC100 header files, I understand ACC200 is an > >>>>> evolution of the ACC10x family. The FEC bits are really close, > >>>>> ACC200 main addition seems to be FFT acceleration which could be > >>>>> handled in ACC10x driver based on device ID. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think both drivers have to be merged in order to avoid code > >>>>> duplication. That's how other families of devices (e.g. i40e) are > >>>>> handled. > >>>> I haven't seen your reply on this point. > >>>> Do you confirm you are working on a single driver for ACC family in > >>>> order to avoid code duplication? > >>>> > >>> The implementation is based on distinct ACC100 and ACC200 drivers. > >>> The 2 > >> devices are fundamentally different generation, processes and IP. > >>> MountBryce is an eASIC device over PCIe while ACC200 is an > >>> integrated > >> accelerator on Xeon CPU. > >>> The actual implementation are not the same, underlying IP are all > >>> distinct > >> even if many of the descriptor format have similarities. > >>> The actual capabilities of the acceleration are different and/or new. > >>> The workaround and silicon errata are also different causing > >>> different > >> limitation and implementation in the driver (see the serie with > >> ongoing changes for ACC100 in parallel). > >>> This is fundamentally distinct from ACC101 which was a derivative > >>> product > >> from ACC100 and where it made sense to share implementation between > >> ACC100 and ACC101. > >>> So in a nutshell these 2 devices and drivers are 2 different beasts > >>> and the > >> intention is to keep them intentionally separate as in the serie. > >>> Let me know if unclear, thanks! > >> Nic, > >> > >> I used a similarity checker to compare acc100 and acc200 > >> > >> https://dickgrune.com/Programs/similarity_tester/ > >> > >> l=simum.log > >> if [ -f $l ]; then > >> rm $l > >> fi > >> > >> sim_c -s -R -o$l -R -p -P -a . > >> > >> There results are > >> > >> ./acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h consists for 100 % of > >> ./acc100/acc100_pf_enum.h material ./acc100/acc100_pf_enum.h consists > >> for 98 % of ./acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h material > >> ./acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.h consists for > >> 98 % of ./acc200/acc200_pmd.h material ./acc200/acc200_vf_enum.h > >> consists for 95 % of ./acc100/acc100_pf_enum.h material > >> ./acc200/acc200_pmd.h consists for 92 % of ./acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.h > >> material ./acc200/rte_acc200_cfg.h consists for 92 % of > >> ./acc100/rte_acc100_cfg.h material ./acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.c consists > >> for 87 % of ./acc200/rte_acc200_pmd.c material > >> ./acc100/acc100_vf_enum.h consists for > >> 80 % of ./acc200/acc200_pf_enum.h material ./acc200/rte_acc200_pmd.c > >> consists for 78 % of ./acc100/rte_acc100_pmd.c material > >> ./acc100/rte_acc100_cfg.h consists for 75 % of > >> ./acc200/rte_acc200_cfg.h material > >> > >> Spot checking the first *pf_enum.h at 100%, these are the devices' > >> registers, they are the same. > >> > >> I raised this similarity issue with 100 vs 101. > >> > >> Having multiple copies is difficult to support and should be avoided. > >> > >> For the end user, they should have to use only one driver. > >> > > There are really different IP and do not have the same interface (PCIe/DDR > > vs > integrated) and there is big serie of changes which are specific to ACC100 > coming in parallel. Any workaround, optimization would be different. > > I agree that for the coming serie of integrated accelerator we will use a > unified driver approach but for that very case that would be quite messy to > artificially put them within the same PMD. > > How is the IP different when 100% of the registers are the same ? >
These are 2 different HW aspects. The base toplevel configuration registers are kept similar on purpose but the underlying IP are totally different design and implementation. Even the registers have differences but not visible here, the actual RDL file would define more specifically these registers bitfields and implementation including which ones are not implemented (but that is proprietary information), and at bbdev level the interface is not some much register based than processing based on data from DMA. Basically even if there was a common driver, all these would be duplicated and they are indeed different IP (including different vendors).. But I agree with the general intent and to have a common driver for the integrated driver serie (ACC200, ACC300...) now that we are moving away from PCIe/DDR lookaside acceleration and eASIC/FPGA implementation (ACC100/AC101). Thanks Nic > Tom > > > > >
