On 1/11/2019 12:15 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:48 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > Ok. I got a cross compiler now. Any reference about how to use it with DPDK?
just providing CROSS= to makefile should be enough, rest is same. I found following for arm, it applies to ppc too: https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/linux_gsg/cross_build_dpdk_for_arm64.html > > >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > [2] >>> > error: comparison is always true due to limited range of data >> type >>> > [-Werror=type-limits] >>> > >>> >> >>
