On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:13:43PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Simon Horman > <simon.hor...@netronome.com> wrote: > > this series adds a flower app to the NFP driver. > > It initialises four types of netdevs: > > > > * PF netdev - lower-device for communication of packets to device > > * PF representor netdev > > * VF representor netdevs > > * Phys port representor netdevs > > > > The PF netdev acts as a lower-device which sends and receives packets to > > and from the firmware. The representors act as upper-devices. For TX > > representors attach a metadata dst to the skb which is used by the PF > > netdev to prepend metadata to the packet before forwarding the firmware. On > > RX the PF netdev looks up the representor based on the prepended metadata > > recieved from the firmware and forwards the skb to the representor after > > removing the metadata. > > Hi Simon, Jakub > > Good to have more VF representors around... > > > Control queues are used to send and receive control messages which are > > used to communicate configuration information with the firmware. These > > are in separate vNIC to the queues belonging to the PF netdev. The control > > queues are not exposed to use-space via a netdev or any other means. > > > > Do you have documentation for the control channel or I should look on > earlier commits?
I don't believe there is any publicly available documentation other than the code. > The control messages you describe here are also the ones that are used > to load/unload > specific app? In this patchset PORTMOD messages are used for (app-specific) configuration. > > As the name implies this app is targeted at providing offload of TC flower. > > That will be added by follow-up work. This patchset focuses on adding phys > > port and VF representor netdevs to which flower classifiers may be attached. > > I guess you want to have switch ID so if someone looks on the reps (ip -d) > they can realize they all belong to the same e-switch, we are using > switchdev attribute for that matter. Yes, that intended to be part of follow-up patches. > Few nits from building from static checker below. Thanks, sorry for letting that through. I'll fix them up ASAP. > Or. > > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_repr.c:78:1: warning: > symbol 'nfp_repr_phy_port_get_stats64' was not declared. Should it be > static? > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_repr.c:98:1: warning: > symbol 'nfp_repr_vf_get_stats64' was not declared. Should it be > static? > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_repr.c:118:1: warning: > symbol 'nfp_repr_pf_get_stats64' was not declared. Should it be > static? > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_repr.c:262:40: warning: > incorrect type in assignment (different base types) > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_repr.c:262:40: expected > unsigned int [unsigned] [usertype] port_id > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_repr.c:262:40: got > restricted __be32 [usertype] <noident> > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/main.c:116:19: warning: cast > to restricted __be32
