[dpdk-dev] [PATCH V2 3/5] Add Intel FPGA BUS Lib Code

[Bruce Richardson]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:20:25AM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have had issues compiling a few things here, have you checked
> build status before submitting?
> 
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 03:51:32PM +0800, Rosen Xu wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Rosen Xu <rosen.xu at intel.com>
> > ---
<snip>
> +
> > +/*
> > + * Scan the content of the FPGA bus, and the devices in the devices
> > + * list
> > + */
> 
> So you seem to scan your bus by reading parameters
> given to the --ifpga EAL option.
> 
> Can you justify why you cannot use the PCI bus, have your FPGA be probed
> by a PCI driver, that would take those parameters as driver parameters,
> and spawn raw devices (one per bitstream) as needed as a result?
> 
> I see no reason this is not feasible. Unless you duly justify this
> approach, it seems unacceptable to me. You are subverting generic EAL
> code to bend things to your approach, without clear rationale.
> 

While I agree with the comments in other emails about avoiding
special-cases in the code that makes things not-scalable, I would take the
view that using a bus-type is the correct choice for this. While you could
have a single device that creates other devices, that is also true for all
other buses as well.  [Furthermore, I think it is incorrect assume that all
devices on the FPGA bus would be raw devices, it's entirely possible to
have cryptodevs, bbdevs or compress devs implemented in the AFUs].

Consider what a bus driver provides: it's a generic mechanism for scanning
for devices - which all use a common connection method - for DPDK use, and
mapping device drivers to those devices. For an FPGA device which presents
multiple AFUs, this seems to be exactly what is required - a device driver
to scan for devices and present them to DPDK. The FPGA bus driver will have
to check each AFU and match it against the set of registered AFU device
drivers to ensure that the crypto AFU gets the cryptodev driver, etc.

Logically, therefore, it is a bus - which just happens to be a sub-bus of
PCI, i.e. presented as a PCI device. Consider also that it may be possible
or even desirable, to use blacklisting and whitelisting for those AFU
devices so that some AFUs could be used by one app, while others by
another. If we just have a single PCI device, I think we'll find ourselves
duplicating a lot of bus-related functionality inside the driver in that
case.

Regards,
/Bruce