[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] i40e: enable internal switch of pf

[Wu, Jingjing]

Hi, Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qiu, Michael
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:06 PM
> To: Wu, Jingjing; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] i40e: enable internal switch of pf
> 
> On 1/29/2015 12:57 PM, Wu, Jingjing wrote:
> > Hi, Michael
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Qiu, Michael
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 9:56 AM
> >> To: Wu, Jingjing; dev at dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] i40e: enable internal switch of
> >> pf
> >>
> >> On 1/29/2015 9:42 AM, Jingjing Wu wrote:
> >>> This patch enables PF's internal switch by setting ALLOWLOOPBACK
> >>> flag when VEB is created. With this patch, traffic from PF can be
> >>> switched on the VEB.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu at intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c | 36
> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> >>> b/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> >>> index fe758c2..94fd36c 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> >>> @@ -2854,6 +2854,40 @@ i40e_vsi_dump_bw_config(struct i40e_vsi
> *vsi)
> >>>  	return 0;
> >>>  }
> >>>
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * i40e_enable_pf_lb
> >>> + * @pf: pointer to the pf structure
> >>> + *
> >>> + * allow loopback on pf
> >>> + */
> >>> +static inline void
> >>> +i40e_enable_pf_lb(struct i40e_pf *pf) {
> >>> +	struct i40e_hw *hw = I40E_PF_TO_HW(pf);
> >>> +	struct i40e_vsi_context ctxt;
> >>> +	int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> +	memset(&ctxt, 0, sizeof(ctxt));
> >>> +	ctxt.seid = pf->main_vsi_seid;
> >>> +	ctxt.pf_num = hw->pf_id;
> >>> +	ret = i40e_aq_get_vsi_params(hw, &ctxt, NULL);
> >>> +	if (ret) {
> >>> +		PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "couldn't get pf vsi config, err %d,
> >> aq_err %d",
> >>> +			ret, hw->aq.asq_last_status);
> >>> +		return;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +	ctxt.flags = I40E_AQ_VSI_TYPE_PF;
> >>> +	ctxt.info.valid_sections =
> >>> +		rte_cpu_to_le_16(I40E_AQ_VSI_PROP_SWITCH_VALID);
> >> Here does it need to be "|=" ? As ctxt.infowill be filled in
> >> i40e_aq_get_vsi_params(), I don't know if it has other issue for
> >> override this filled by "=".
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Michael
> > You can look at the following lines. What we called is
> i40e_aq_update_vsi_params.
> > So we need only set the flag we want to update.
> 
> Sorry, I make a mistake, what I mean is:
> 
> 1. ret = i40e_aq_get_vsi_params(hw, &ctxt, NULL);
>     here will fill the the field  ctxt.info of struct i40e_vsi_context ctxt right?
>     So ctxt.info is get from other place.
> 
> 2. Then:
> 
> +	ctxt.info.valid_sections =
> +		rte_cpu_to_le_16(I40E_AQ_VSI_PROP_SWITCH_VALID);
> 
> Has been override by assignment a value, so I just confuse whether it has
> some issue.
> 
> If I'm wrong, please ignore. 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael
> 
I get your idea now. Some elements in ctxt is meaningless and not set when getting, and others are meaningful when
updating. The valid_sections is only meaningful when setting. If one flag in valid_section is set, it means the
hw need to process corresponding section.

> > Thanks
> > Jingjing
> >
> >>> +	ctxt.info.switch_id |=
> >>> +		rte_cpu_to_le_16(I40E_AQ_VSI_SW_ID_FLAG_ALLOW_LB);
> >>> +
> >>> +	ret = i40e_aq_update_vsi_params(hw, &ctxt, NULL);
> >>> +	if (ret)
> >>> +		PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "update vsi switch failed,
> >> aq_err=%d\n",
> >>> +			hw->aq.asq_last_status);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>>  /* Setup a VSI */
> >>>  struct i40e_vsi *
> >>>  i40e_vsi_setup(struct i40e_pf *pf,
> >>> @@ -2889,6 +2923,8 @@ i40e_vsi_setup(struct i40e_pf *pf,
> >>>  			PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "VEB setup failed");
> >>>  			return NULL;
> >>>  		}
> >>> +		/* set ALLOWLOOPBACk on pf, when veb is created */
> >>> +		i40e_enable_pf_lb(pf);
> >>>  	}
> >>>
> >>>  	vsi = rte_zmalloc("i40e_vsi", sizeof(struct i40e_vsi), 0);
> >