[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201015083251.10bc1aaf@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:32:51 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: sundeep subbaraya <sundeep.lkml@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rsaladi2@...vell.com, Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>,
Subbaraya Sundeep <sbhatta@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 06/10] octeontx2-af: Add NIX1 interfaces to NPC
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:53:07 +0530 sundeep subbaraya wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 8:18 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:56:28 +0530 sundeep.lkml@...il.com wrote:
> > > -static const struct npc_mcam_kex npc_mkex_default = {
> > > +static struct npc_mcam_kex npc_mkex_default = {
> > > .mkex_sign = MKEX_SIGN,
> > > .name = "default",
> > > .kpu_version = NPC_KPU_PROFILE_VER,
> >
> > Why is this no longer constant? Are you modifying global data based
> > on the HW discovered in the system?
>
> Yes. Due to an errata present on earlier silicons
> npc_mkex_default.keyx_cfg[NIX_INTF_TX]
> and npc_mkex_default.keyx_cfg[NIX_INTF_RX] needs to be identical.
Does this run on the SoC? Is there no possibility that the same kernel
will have to drive two different pieces of hardware?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists