From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5383239 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:53:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id n186so140888073wmn.1 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:53:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=Aycm4pVkbo23LlxE1IAb4PGcTLBe5NBfd/idvHuCaW4=; b=PvK0XEDvzDCYgaaSvWuoLD5mUAllBCNf6q82feu50TatqzAnG9PG7YqYSEVfRsxOH2 mJg6xfU2gOl5TG36LBPsku4d3lzU/aghFXucjGxvul84ABroK3s1Z7QVmVKEL+yek/hJ Q03zJSuZGaoaiY/EwDkro8VSmBRqudv0+XUv8kPGWpvddLpbyjHLzh/owzxPZF4A8GfJ aIS2x037Fm4jvSv9ywOE9tPXLP2Zl+Wl7nCY1X8ceWAtVgGuUyVUKkdbVSO/o1g0FUVG d6Om5P6QFw4bwcRlkYfIjcznWUF3yis9VY3eBjopDlodGXA+V8sH1EyRdXGxJeKSe7V7 RFOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Aycm4pVkbo23LlxE1IAb4PGcTLBe5NBfd/idvHuCaW4=; b=Kv/cxFPEdYd4dUkImRR6ULSnE8RZ/WqU+VWAPWD/qBECe56gdqvu9BKbLvykS1WDdo sgSG8HoEwgqhRL6UWfQUuTGXEqjyBbJWPmtCslaDJ1mzMcYovVQ8bgmyLdByzrQOcnkO fYvuQmKutXJPwwAQx4/9BKFBbvqJtHDZi2NTwTbX6NF+sIpJg/AaRQ59WRlXNo+v6KKE 2CU5xolXay3RHd/c2l9DwfijM7EfwInQjOSz8cIWnqvzzq7yHei3AoCn8BBlMHeqEVai 6qC03pf5FV483MFwTO453V0mRZxuUBWitVru1m4abGcPqiAXqMOgXPPhe+cqozUZJhoH p04w== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLETHXduzSp67n2llVh572OI8+8z9CLLV9M6RTDii0eTAZVkRFunT1lIXmsmPyFNID/ X-Received: by 10.28.105.136 with SMTP id z8mr20714760wmh.71.1457455999690; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from autoinstall.dev.6wind.com (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id up6sm3828383wjc.6.2016.03.08.08.53.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:53:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:53:05 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro To: Marc Sune Message-ID: <20160308165305.GK27714@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> References: <1455488259-1000-1-git-send-email-marcdevel@gmail.com> <1456793151-1475-1-git-send-email-marcdevel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 0/4] ethdev: add speed capabilities and refactor link API X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:53:20 -0000 On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 04:00:29PM +0100, Marc Sune wrote: > 2016-03-01 1:45 GMT+01:00 Marc Sune : > > > The current rte_eth_dev_info abstraction does not provide any mechanism to > > get the supported speed(s) of an ethdev. > > > > For some drivers (e.g. ixgbe), an educated guess could be done based on the > > driver's name (driver_name in rte_eth_dev_info), see: > > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2013-August/000412.html > > > > However, i) doing string comparisons is annoying, and can silently > > break existing applications if PMDs change their names ii) it does not > > provide all the supported capabilities of the ethdev iii) for some drivers > > it > > is impossible determine correctly the (max) speed by the application > > (e.g. in i40, distinguish between XL710 and X710). > > > > In addition, the link APIs do not allow to define a set of advertised link > > speeds for autonegociation. > > > > This series of patches adds the following capabilities: > > > > * speed_capa bitmap in rte_eth_dev_info, which is filled by the PMDs > > according to the physical device capabilities. > > * refactors link API in ethdev to allow the definition of the advertised > > link speeds, fix speed (no auto-negociation) or advertise all supported > > speeds (default). > > > > WARNING: this patch series, specifically 3/4, is NOT tested for most of the > > PMDs, due to the lack of hardware. Only generic EM is tested (VM). > > Reviewing > > and testing required by PMD maintainers. > > > > * * * * * > > > > v2: rebase, converted speed_capa into 32 bits bitmap, fixed alignment > > (checkpatch). > > > > v3: rebase to v2.1. unified ETH_LINK_SPEED and ETH_SPEED_CAP into > > ETH_SPEED. > > Converted field speed in struct rte_eth_conf to speed, to allow a > > bitmap > > for defining the announced speeds, as suggested M. Brorup. Fixed > > spelling > > issues. > > > > v4: fixed errata in the documentation of field speeds of rte_eth_conf, and > > commit 1/2 message. rebased to v2.1.0. v3 was incorrectly based on > > ~2.1.0-rc1. > > > > v5: revert to v2 speed capabilities patch. Fixed MLX4 speed capabilities > > (thanks N. Laranjeiro). Refactored link speed API to allow setting > > advertised speeds (3/4). Added NO_AUTONEG option to explicitely disable > > auto-negociation. Updated 2.2 rel. notes (4/4). Rebased to current > > HEAD. > > > > v6: Move link_duplex to be part of bitfield. Fixed i40 autoneg flag link > > update code. Added rte_eth_speed_to_bm_flag() to .map file. Fixed other > > spelling issues. Rebased to current HEAD. > > > > v7: Rebased to current HEAD. Moved documentation to v2.3. Still needs > > testing > > from PMD maintainers. > > > > v8: Rebased to current HEAD. Modified em driver impl. to not touch base > > files. > > Merged patch 5 into 3 (map file). Changed numeric speed to a 64 bit > > value. > > Filled-in speed capabilities for drivers bnx2x, cxgbe, mlx5 and nfp in > > addition to the ones of previous patch sets. > > > > v9: rebased to current HEAD. Reverted numeric speed to 32 bit in struct > > rte_eth_link (no atomic link get > 64bit). Fixed mlx5 driver > > compilation > > and link speeds. Moved documentation to release_16_04.rst and fixed > > several > > issues. Upgrade NIC notes with speed capabilities. > > > > Anyone interested in reviewing and _testing_ this series? > > Thank you > Marc Hi Marc, I will take a look tomorrow morning and run test on Mellanox NICs (ConnectX 3 and 4). I do not have access to the others NICs, if those who have can do it, could be really great. Regards, -- Nélio Laranjeiro 6WIND