Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] net: introduce Qualcomm IPA driver

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:36 PM Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/31/19 9:58 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 22:53 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> >
> > My question from the Nov 2018 IPA rmnet driver still stands; how does
> > this relate to net/ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet/ if at all? And if this is
> > really just a netdev talking to the IPA itself and unrelated to
> > net/ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet, let's call it "ipa%d" and stop cargo-
> > culting rmnet around just because it happens to be a net driver for a
> > QC SoC.
> First, the relationship between the IPA driver and the rmnet driver
> is that the IPA driver is assumed to sit between the rmnet driver
> and the hardware.

Does this mean that IPA can only be used to back rmnet, and rmnet
can only be used on top of IPA, or can or both of them be combined
with another driver to talk to instead?

> Currently the modem is assumed to use QMAP protocol.  This means
> each packet is prefixed by a (struct rmnet_map_header) structure
> that allows the IPA connection to be multiplexed for several logical
> connections.  The rmnet driver parses such messages and implements
> the multiplexed network interfaces.
> QMAP protocol can also be used for aggregating many small packets
> into a larger message.  The rmnet driver implements de-aggregation
> of such messages (and could probably aggregate them for TX as well).
> Finally, the IPA can support checksum offload, and the rmnet
> driver handles providing a prepended header (for TX) and
> interpreting the appended trailer (for RX) if these features
> are enabled.
> So basically, the purpose of the rmnet driver is to handle QMAP
> protocol connections, and right now that's what the modem provides.

Do you have any idea why this particular design was picked?

My best guess is that it evolved organically with multiple
generations of hardware and software, rather than being thought
out as a nice abstraction layer. If the two are tightly connected,
this might mean that what we actually want here is to reintegrate
the two components into a single driver with a much simpler
RX and TX path that handles the checksumming and aggregation
of data packets directly as it passes them from the network
stack into the hardware.

Always passing data from one netdev to another both ways
sounds like it introduces both direct CPU overhead, and
problems with flow control when data gets buffered inbetween.
The intermediate buffer here acts like a router that must
pass data along or randomly drop packets when the consumer
can't keep up with the producer.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux