From: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
To: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
huangdengdui <huangdengdui@huawei.com>,
Damodharam Ammepalli <damodharam.ammepalli@broadcom.com>,
<roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>,
<ferruh.yigit@amd.com>, <aman.deep.singh@intel.com>,
<yuying.zhang@intel.com>, <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
<stephen@networkplumber.org>, <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>,
<liuyonglong@huawei.com>, <fengchengwen@huawei.com>,
<haijie1@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: support setting lanes
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:25:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <084e48f7-b67d-32be-3c01-e7a582b9e15b@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACZ4nhsKMwdfGhbMELthybKWiAWd7gGscTjYQCc-SzNHe8nr_w@mail.gmail.com>
在 2024/3/26 21:47, Ajit Khaparde 写道:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:15 AM lihuisong (C) <lihuisong@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> 在 2024/3/26 18:30, Thomas Monjalon 写道:
>>> 26/03/2024 02:42, lihuisong (C):
>>>> 在 2024/3/25 17:30, Thomas Monjalon 写道:
>>>>> 25/03/2024 07:24, huangdengdui:
>>>>>> On 2024/3/22 21:58, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>>> 22/03/2024 08:09, Dengdui Huang:
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G RTE_BIT32(8) /**< 10 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_20G RTE_BIT32(9) /**< 20 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G RTE_BIT32(10) /**< 25 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G RTE_BIT32(11) /**< 40 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G RTE_BIT32(12) /**< 50 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_56G RTE_BIT32(13) /**< 56 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G RTE_BIT32(14) /**< 100 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G RTE_BIT32(15) /**< 200 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G RTE_BIT32(16) /**< 400 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G RTE_BIT32(8) /**< 10 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_20G RTE_BIT32(9) /**< 20 Gbps 2lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G RTE_BIT32(10) /**< 25 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G RTE_BIT32(11) /**< 40 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G RTE_BIT32(12) /**< 50 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_56G RTE_BIT32(13) /**< 56 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G RTE_BIT32(14) /**< 100 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G RTE_BIT32(15) /**< 200 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G RTE_BIT32(16) /**< 400 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G_4LANES RTE_BIT32(17) /**< 10 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G_2LANES RTE_BIT32(18) /**< 50 Gbps 2 lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G_2LANES RTE_BIT32(19) /**< 100 Gbps 2 lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G_4LANES RTE_BIT32(20) /**< 100 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G_2LANES RTE_BIT32(21) /**< 200 Gbps 2lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G_8LANES RTE_BIT32(22) /**< 400 Gbps 8lanes */
>>>>>>> I don't think it is a good idea to make this more complex.
>>>>>>> It brings nothing as far as I can see, compared to having speed and lanes separated.
>>>>>>> Can we have lanes information a separate value? no need for bitmask.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,Thomas, Ajit, roretzla, damodharam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also considered the option at the beginning of the design.
>>>>>> But this option is not used due to the following reasons:
>>>>>> 1. For the user, ethtool couples speed and lanes.
>>>>>> The result of querying the NIC capability is as follows:
>>>>>> Supported link modes:
>>>>>> 100000baseSR4/Full
>>>>>> 100000baseSR2/Full
>>>>>> The NIC capability is configured as follows:
>>>>>> ethtool -s eth1 speed 100000 lanes 4 autoneg off
>>>>>> ethtool -s eth1 speed 100000 lanes 2 autoneg off
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, users are more accustomed to the coupling of speed and lanes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. For the PHY, When the physical layer capability is configured through the MDIO,
>>>>>> the speed and lanes are also coupled.
>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>> Table 45–7—PMA/PMD control 2 register bit definitions[1]
>>>>>> PMA/PMD type selection
>>>>>> 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 = 100GBASE-SR2 PMA/PMD
>>>>>> 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 = 100GBASE-SR4 PMA/PMD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, coupling speeds and lanes is easier to understand.
>>>>>> And it is easier for the driver to report the support lanes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, the code implementation is compatible with the old version.
>>>>>> When the driver does not support the lanes setting, the code does not need to be modified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I think the speed and lanes coupling is better.
>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>> You are mixing hardware implementation, user tool, and API.
>>>>> Having a separate and simple API is cleaner and not more difficult to handle
>>>>> in some get/set style functions.
>>>> Having a separate and simple API is cleaner. It's good.
>>>> But supported lane capabilities have a lot to do with the specified
>>>> speed. This is determined by releated specification.
>>>> If we add a separate API for speed lanes, it probably is hard to check
>>>> the validity of the configuration for speed and lanes.
>>>> And the setting lane API sepparated from speed is not good for
>>>> uniforming all PMD's behavior in ethdev layer.
>>> Please let's be more specific.
>>> There are 3 needs:
>>> - set PHY lane config
>>> - get PHY lane config
>>> - get PHY lane capabilities
>> IMO, this lane capabilities should be reported based on supported speed
>> capabilities.
>>> There is no problem providing a function to get the number of PHY lanes.
>>> It is possible to set PHY lanes number after defining a fixed speed.
>> yes it's ok.
>>>> The patch[1] is an example for this separate API.
>>>> I think it is not very good. It cannot tell user and PMD the follow points:
>>>> 1) user don't know what lanes should or can be set for a specified speed
>>>> on one NIC.
>>> This is about capabilities.
>>> Can we say a HW will support a maximum number of PHY lanes in general?
>>> We may need to associate the maximum speed per lane?
>>> Do we really need to associate PHY lane and PHY speed numbers for capabilities?
>> Personally, it should contain the below releationship at least.
>> speed 10G --> 1lane | 4lane
>> speed 100G --> 2lane | 4lane
>>> Example: if a HW supports 100G-4-lanes and 200G-2-lanes,
>>> may we assume it is also supporting 200G-4-lanes?
>> I think we cannot assume that NIC also support 200G-4-lanes.
>> Beause it has a lot to do with HW design.
>>>> 2) how should PMD do for a supported lanes in their HW?
>>> I don't understand this question. Please rephrase.
>> I mean that PMD don't know set how many lanes when the lanes from user
>> is not supported on a fixed speed by PMD.
>> So ethdev layer should limit the avaiable lane number based on a fixed
>> speed.
> ethdev layer has generally been opaque. We should keep it that way.
> The PMD should know what the HW supports.
If one operation is common for all PMD, which is recommanded to do it in
ethdev layer.
> So it should show the capabilities correctly. Right?
Yes, the lane capabilities of differrent speed are necessary for user.
> And if the user provides incorrect settings, it should reject it.
Rejecting it in this case is no any reason.
>
>>>> Anyway, if we add setting speed lanes feature, we must report and set
>>>> speed and lanes capabilities for user well.
>>>> otherwise, user will be more confused.
>>> Well is not necessarily exposing all raw combinations as ethtool does.
>> Agreed.
>>>> [1] https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=31606
>>>
>>> .
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-29 3:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-12 7:52 [PATCH 0/3] " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-12 7:52 ` [PATCH 1/3] ethdev: " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-19 3:02 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-03-20 1:16 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-12 7:52 ` [PATCH 2/3] net/hns3: " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-12 7:52 ` [PATCH 3/3] app/testpmd: " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-15 21:47 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-03-19 2:38 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 13:58 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-22 15:15 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-22 17:32 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2024-03-22 22:30 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-03-25 6:24 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-25 9:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-25 21:14 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-03-26 1:42 ` lihuisong (C)
2024-03-26 3:45 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-26 10:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-26 11:15 ` lihuisong (C)
2024-03-26 13:47 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-26 18:11 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-26 18:21 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-03-30 11:38 ` huangdengdui
2024-04-01 20:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-04-01 22:29 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-05-22 20:44 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-04-02 8:37 ` huangdengdui
2024-04-02 15:28 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-04-04 13:45 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-03-29 3:25 ` lihuisong (C) [this message]
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] test: updated UT for " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] ethdev: add function to parse link mode info Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] net/hns3: use parse link mode info function Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] net/hns3: support setting lanes Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] app/testpmd: " Dengdui Huang
2024-04-04 13:58 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] " Ferruh Yigit
2024-05-16 12:48 ` huangdengdui
2024-05-22 20:49 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-03-18 14:56 ` [PATCH 0/3] " Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-18 21:26 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-03-18 21:42 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-03-18 22:55 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-20 11:41 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-20 12:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-03-21 2:02 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-21 8:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-22 2:28 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-22 4:38 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-03-22 5:25 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-22 5:51 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-03-22 13:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-25 14:04 ` Jerin Jacob
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=084e48f7-b67d-32be-3c01-e7a582b9e15b@huawei.com \
--to=lihuisong@huawei.com \
--cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
--cc=aman.deep.singh@intel.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=damodharam.ammepalli@broadcom.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=fengchengwen@huawei.com \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=haijie1@huawei.com \
--cc=huangdengdui@huawei.com \
--cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=liuyonglong@huawei.com \
--cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=yuying.zhang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).