On 1/10/2019 11:55 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:15 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com > <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com>> wrote: > > On 1/9/2019 2:20 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:54 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com > <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com>>> wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2019 8:56 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > > The Netronome's Network Flow Processor chip is highly programmable > > > with the goal of processing packets at high speed. Processing > units > > > and other chip components are available from the host through the > > > PCIe CPP(Command Push Pull bus) interface. The NFP PF PMD > configures > > > a CPP handler for setting up and working with vNICs, perform > actions > > > like link up or down, or accessing extended stats from the MAC > component. > > > > > > There exist NFP host tools which access the NFP components for > > > programming and debugging but they require the CPP interface. > When the > > > PMD is bound to the PF, the DPDK app owns the CPP interface, so > these > > > host tools can not access the NFP through other means like NFP > kernel > > > drivers. > > > > > > This patch adds a CPP bridge using the rte_service API which can > be > > > enabled by a DPDK app. Interestingly, DPDK clients like OVS will > not > > > enable specific service cores, but this can be performed with a > > > secondary process specifically enabling this CPP bridge service > and > > > therefore giving access to the NFP to those host tools. > > > > Hi Alejandro, > > > > > > Hi Ferruh, > > > > > > Getting a few build errors, more details below. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.luc...@netronome.com > <mailto:alejandro.luc...@netronome.com> > > <mailto:alejandro.luc...@netronome.com > <mailto:alejandro.luc...@netronome.com>>> > > <...> > > > > > + /* Obtain target's CPP ID and offset in target */ > > > + cpp_id = (offset >> 40) << 8; > > > > With icc, i686 getting [1], it seems 'off_t' is 32bits long on 32bit > build. > > > > [1] > > error #63: shift count is too large > > > > > > We do not support 32 bits. I thought our PMD was not built in that case. > > If PMD doesn't support 32 bits, above is OK, I will update my script > accordingly. > > > > > > > <...> > > > > > + if (err != (int)len) { > > > + printf("%s: error when receiving, %d > of %lu\n", > > > + __func__, err, count); > > > > Giving build error for 32bits [3], and can you please use logging > macros instead > > of printf? > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > [3] > > error: format ‘%lu’ expects argument of type ‘long unsigned int’, > but > argument 4 > > has type ‘size_t’ {aka ‘unsigned int’} [-Werror=format=] > > > > <...> > > > > > + /* Obtain target's CPP ID and offset in target */ > > > + cpp_id = (offset >> 40) << 8; > > > > Same as above [1]. > > > > <...> > > > > > + if (err != (int)len) { > > > + printf("%s: error when sending: %d > of > %lu\n", > > > + __func__, err, count); > > > > Same build error with above [3]. > > > > <...> > > > > > +nfp_cpp_bridge_serve_ioctl(int sockfd, struct nfp_cpp *cpp) > > > +{ > > > + int cmd, err; > > > + uint32_t ident_size, tmp; > > > + > > > + /* Reading now the IOCTL command */ > > > + err = recv(sockfd, &cmd, 4, 0); > > > + if (err != 4) { > > > + printf("%s: read error from socket\n", __func__); > > > + return -EIO; > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* Only supporting NFP_IOCTL_CPP_IDENTIFICATION */ > > > + if (cmd != NFP_IOCTL_CPP_IDENTIFICATION) { > > > > Giving build error with ppc_64-power8-linuxapp-gcc [2]. > > > > > > We do not support power architecture. > > Yes but issue seems not exactly ppc issue, more like signed - unsigned > comparison. Can you please check if is there any valid issue here? > > > This is a funny one. NFP_IOCTL_CPP_IDENTIFICATION is not zero, and cmd could > be > anything. > And it does work with other compilers! > > Talking with a compiler guy in the office, and it is hard to know why the > compiler is triggering an error here. I suspect this is some sort of > endianness > mess, and he thinks the compiler could be assuming the cmd variable after recv > call is always negative or positive, and the macro always being the opposite > in > powerpc, so the comparison is always true, what is what the error message > says. > > Anyway, it is not clear how to fix this. Maybe defining cmd as uint32_t could > help. Any change we can test this before sending another patch version?
I am using a cross compiler for ppc, it is freely available, you should be able to get and test with it, or I can test for you if you prefer. > > > > > > > > > [2] > > error: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type > > [-Werror=type-limits] > > >
