On Tue, 10 Jan 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 04:30:28PM -0800, matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Version 1 of the Device Feature Header (DFH) definition adds
functionality to the Device Feature List (DFL) bus.
A DFHv1 header may have one or more parameter blocks that
further describes the HW to SW. Add support to the DFL bus
to parse the MSI-X parameter.
The location of a feature's register set is explicitly
described in DFHv1 and can be relative to the base of the DFHv1
or an absolute address. Parse the location and pass the information
to DFL driver.
...
v10: change dfh_find_param to return size of parameter data in bytes
The problem that might occur with this approach is byte ordering.
When we have u64 items, we know that they all are placed in CPU
ordering by the bottom layer. What's the contract now? Can it be
a problematic? Please double check this (always keep in mind BE32
as most interesting case for u64/unsigned long representation and
other possible byte ordering outcomes).
A number of u64 items certainly states explicit alignment of the memory,
but I think byte ordering is a different issue.
The bottom layer, by design, is still enforcing a number u64 items under
the hood. So the contract has not changed. Changing units of size from
u64s to bytes was suggested to match the general practice of size of
memory being in bytes. I think the suggestion was made because the return
type for dfh_find_param() changed from u64* to void* in version 9, when
indirectly returning the size of the parameter data was introduced. So a
void * with a size in bytes makes sense. On the other hand, returning a
u64 * is a more precise reflection of the data alignment. I think the API
should be as follows:
/**
* dfh_find_param() - find parameter block for the given parameter id
* @dfl_dev: dfl device
* @param_id: id of dfl parameter
* @pcount: destination to store size of parameter data in u64 bit words
*
* Return: pointer to start of parameter data, PTR_ERR otherwise.
*/
u64 *dfh_find_param(struct dfl_device *dfl_dev, int param_id, size_t
*pcount)
Regarding byte ordering, Documentation/fpga/dfl.rst does not
currently mention endianness. All current HW implementations of DFL are
little-endian. I should add a statement in Documentation/fpga/dfl.rst
that fields in the Device Feature Header are little-endian.
Thanks for the feedback,
Matthew Gerlach
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
