Hello, On 21-11-2016 05:29, Rayagond Kokatanur wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Rabin Vincent <ra...@rab.in> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:20:27PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote: >>> For now we are interesting in improving the synopsys QoS driver under >>> /nect/ethernet/synopsys. For now the driver structure consists of a single >>> file >>> called dwc_eth_qos.c, containing synopsys ethernet qos common ops and >>> platform >>> related stuff. >>> >>> Our strategy would be: >>> >>> a) Implement a platform glue driver (dwc_eth_qos_pltfm.c) >>> b) Implement a pci glue driver (dwc_eth_qos_pci.c) >>> c) Implement a "core driver" (dwc_eth_qos.c) that would only have Ethernet >>> QoS >>> related stuff to be reused by the platform / pci drivers >>> d) Add a set of features to the "core driver" that we have available >>> internally >> >> Note that there are actually two drivers in mainline for this hardware: >> >> drivers/net/ethernet/synopsis/ >> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/ > > Yes the later driver (drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/) supports > both 3.x and 4.x. It has glue layer for pci, platform, core etc, > please refer this driver once before you start. > > You can start adding missing feature of 4.x in stmmac driver.
Thanks you all for all the info. Well, I think we are in a good position to organize the ethernet drivers concerning Synopsys IPs. First of all, in my opinion, it does not make sense to have a ethernet/synopsis (typo :)) when ethernet/stmicro is also for a synopsys IP. If we have another vendor using the same IP it should be able to reuse the commonn operations. But I would put that discussion for later :) For now I suggest that for we create ethernet/qos and create there a folder called dwc (designware controller) where all the synopsys qos IP specific code in order to be reused for example by ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/. We just have to figure out a clean interface for "client drivers" like stmmac to interact with the new qos driver. What do you think about this approach? > >> >> (See http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2016/02/29/127) >> >> The former only supports 4.x of the hardware. >> >> The later supports 4.x and 3.x and already has a platform glue driver >> with support for several platforms, a PCI glue driver, and a core driver >> with several features not present in the former (for example: TX/RX >> interrupt coalescing, EEE, PTP). >> >> Have you evaluated both drivers? Why have you decided to work on the >> former rather than the latter? > > Thanks.
