Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] vDPA/ifcvf: enable Intel C5000X-PL virtio-block for vDPA | From | Jason Wang <> | Date | Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:31:34 +0800 |
| |
在 2021/4/15 下午1:55, Zhu Lingshan 写道: > > > On 4/15/2021 11:34 AM, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> 在 2021/4/14 下午5:18, Zhu Lingshan 写道: >>> This commit enabled Intel FPGA SmartNIC C5000X-PL virtio-block >>> for vDPA. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h | 17 ++++++++++++++++- >>> drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c | 10 +++++++++- >>> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h >>> b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h >>> index 1c04cd256fa7..8b403522bf06 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h >>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h >>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ >>> #include <linux/pci_regs.h> >>> #include <linux/vdpa.h> >>> #include <uapi/linux/virtio_net.h> >>> +#include <uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h> >>> #include <uapi/linux/virtio_config.h> >>> #include <uapi/linux/virtio_pci.h> >>> @@ -28,7 +29,12 @@ >>> #define C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID 0x8086 >>> #define C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID 0x0001 >>> -#define IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES \ >>> +#define C5000X_PL_BLK_VENDOR_ID 0x1AF4 >>> +#define C5000X_PL_BLK_DEVICE_ID 0x1001 >>> +#define C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID 0x8086 >>> +#define C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID 0x0002 >>> + >>> +#define IFCVF_NET_SUPPORTED_FEATURES \ >>> ((1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC) | \ >>> (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT) | \ >>> (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1) | \ >>> @@ -37,6 +43,15 @@ >>> (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM) | \ >>> (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF)) >>> +#define IFCVF_BLK_SUPPORTED_FEATURES \ >>> + ((1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_SIZE_MAX) | \ >>> + (1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_SEG_MAX) | \ >>> + (1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE) | \ >>> + (1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY) | \ >>> + (1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_MQ) | \ >>> + (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1) | \ >>> + (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM)) >> >> >> I think we've discussed this sometime in the past but what's the >> reason for such whitelist consider there's already a get_features() >> implemention? >> >> E.g Any reason to block VIRTIO_BLK_F_WRITE_ZEROS or >> VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED? >> >> Thanks > The reason is some feature bits are supported in the device but not > supported by the driver, e.g, for virtio-net, mq & cq implementation > is not ready in the driver.
I understand the case of virtio-net but I wonder why we need this for block where we don't vq cvq.
Thanks
> > Thanks! > >> >> >>> + >>> /* Only one queue pair for now. */ >>> #define IFCVF_MAX_QUEUE_PAIRS 1 >>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c >>> b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c >>> index 99b0a6b4c227..9b6a38b798fa 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c >>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c >>> @@ -171,7 +171,11 @@ static u64 ifcvf_vdpa_get_features(struct >>> vdpa_device *vdpa_dev) >>> struct ifcvf_hw *vf = vdpa_to_vf(vdpa_dev); >>> u64 features; >>> - features = ifcvf_get_features(vf) & IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES; >>> + if (vf->dev_type == VIRTIO_ID_NET) >>> + features = ifcvf_get_features(vf) & >>> IFCVF_NET_SUPPORTED_FEATURES; >>> + >>> + if (vf->dev_type == VIRTIO_ID_BLOCK) >>> + features = ifcvf_get_features(vf) & >>> IFCVF_BLK_SUPPORTED_FEATURES; >>> return features; >>> } >>> @@ -509,6 +513,10 @@ static struct pci_device_id ifcvf_pci_ids[] = { >>> C5000X_PL_DEVICE_ID, >>> C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID, >>> C5000X_PL_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID) }, >>> + { PCI_DEVICE_SUB(C5000X_PL_BLK_VENDOR_ID, >>> + C5000X_PL_BLK_DEVICE_ID, >>> + C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_VENDOR_ID, >>> + C5000X_PL_BLK_SUBSYS_DEVICE_ID) }, >>> { 0 }, >>> }; >> >
| |