Re: Synopsys Ethernet QoS Driver
From: Joao Pinto
Date: Mon Nov 21 2016 - 07:33:24 EST
On 21-11-2016 05:29, Rayagond Kokatanur wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Rabin Vincent <rabin@xxxxxx> 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:
> 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?
>> (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?