From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/14] net/i40e: support AVF basic
	interface
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:04:04 -0800
Message-ID: <bccbefb1-b07c-98d1-4e32-4a9f2abe096c@intel.com>
References: <1508488012-82704-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com>
 <1511505206-97333-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com>
 <1511505206-97333-12-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: wenzhuo.lu@intel.com
To: Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3376C1C00
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  4 Dec 2017 21:04:06 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <1511505206-97333-12-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 11/23/2017 10:33 PM, Jingjing Wu wrote:
> Enable Virtchnl offload Caps negotiation and RSS_PF offload
> to support AVF basic interface.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
> ---
>  config/common_base             |   2 +-
>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c |  64 +++++++++++++++----
>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.h |   4 ++
>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_pf.c     | 137 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_pf.h     |   6 ++

This is a i40e patch that enables AVF support, right?

I believe it would be better to separate the config change that enables the AVF
PMD by default from i40e changes patches.

<...>

> @@ -3694,14 +3695,21 @@ i40e_get_rss_lut(struct i40e_vsi *vsi, uint8_t *lut, uint16_t lut_size)
>  		uint32_t *lut_dw = (uint32_t *)lut;
>  		uint16_t i, lut_size_dw = lut_size / 4;
>  
> -		for (i = 0; i < lut_size_dw; i++)
> -			lut_dw[i] = I40E_READ_REG(hw, I40E_PFQF_HLUT(i));
> +		if (vsi->type == I40E_VSI_SRIOV) {
> +			for (i = 0; i <= lut_size_dw; i++)
> +				reg = I40E_VFQF_HLUT1(i, vsi->user_param);
> +				lut_dw[i] = i40e_read_rx_ctl(hw, reg);

this assignment is out of "for" loop.

> +		} else {
> +			for (i = 0; i < lut_size_dw; i++)
> +				lut_dw[i] = I40E_READ_REG(hw,
> +							  I40E_PFQF_HLUT(i));
> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  

<...>

> @@ -6754,8 +6784,20 @@ i40e_get_rss_key(struct i40e_vsi *vsi, uint8_t *key, uint8_t *key_len)
>  		uint32_t *key_dw = (uint32_t *)key;
>  		uint16_t i;
>  
> -		for (i = 0; i <= I40E_PFQF_HKEY_MAX_INDEX; i++)
> -			key_dw[i] = i40e_read_rx_ctl(hw, I40E_PFQF_HKEY(i));
> +		if (vsi->type == I40E_VSI_SRIOV) {
> +			for (i = 0; i <= I40E_VFQF_HKEY_MAX_INDEX; i++)
> +				reg = I40E_VFQF_HKEY1(i, vsi->user_param);
> +				key_dw[i] = i40e_read_rx_ctl(hw, reg);

This line is not part of the for loop, seems which is the intention, and all
credits goes to compiler to figuring this out.

> +				*key_len = (I40E_VFQF_HKEY_MAX_INDEX + 1) *
> +					   sizeof(uint32_t);
> +
> +		} else {
> +			for (i = 0; i <= I40E_PFQF_HKEY_MAX_INDEX; i++)
> +				reg = I40E_PFQF_HKEY(i);
> +				key_dw[i] = i40e_read_rx_ctl(hw, reg);

Same problem here, "for" scope is wrong.

<...>