From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A57AA050D; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:06:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECCB340687; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:06:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC444067C for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:06:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6F25C02B5; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:06:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1649956009; x= 1650042409; bh=r3bLHJvZ90PEr3XQyyYdCxByY9eLMcc6qE8rDjwR6yI=; b=t rabyTPmXVx54eQoXbad+vJxw7n0OYkkb5f/1KslguITh6GlfkXeIOWTuyJTtPI9v Xylrd+us+E88KFoVGTXa2bpIJmu0BDFYCDuIZpJU3bzdJQFbuYnK173KGzXWZw4f lnVnXSgqr466YFGoIU34NgTxlEu6jd4XY2BwvnL2DqLMnJhYWSVAT5Bu+ZIXwbpz EBQL4tZBmt53kNBeuw5rg9hPJ0086CciCKutjxIawAXM4QN0pPupyvojgEiltQJh JgPOJNt/JzOLFRmXemtu8sV7/398D9SSX88/obRobY+2rjR3Kt8bE99D2PkXqSYx OehA5UB/IkPEt+OdgvQ9w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1649956009; x=1650042409; bh=r3bLHJvZ90PEr 3XQyyYdCxByY9eLMcc6qE8rDjwR6yI=; b=FsjZWbcDCkp0TwwZjOLyz+lP67O6h qfAVIh8yj0zWZKmtqDrBZVGe4SZxvn/qimiiAQkj8WHXLg5k0kNfm4L/KJjzNUQe vxqJt599uNYbaJj6O5FpRbwxplTLsf5iDB945obtsuaBdhTdvwNRDlQXhPAknHDr /BDyphSdQp6mhBevqGMGNKYwEAGZYwNnNxVP7AUu+UJ1KtfPqtRMJEXj6h/7j/SW Y403A6XLMjo84V9x1dhwA6bgWMq9C8Q5b2/2h5o7pRQlww6WS3cYHtaH8pI9dU65 UimImX41h6E68UflYK5sPOBcaAnbfV3ZPwqR0yJNLfOQ61SGScSSAgV5Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrudelfedguddutdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdej ueeiiedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:06:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jeff Daly , Stephen Hemminger Cc: "Wang, Haiyue" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "qi.z.zhang@intel.com" , "john.mcnamara@intel.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the X550 devices Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:06:45 +0200 Message-ID: <2536156.9Mp67QZiUf@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20220414084301.509fe14a@hermes.local> References: <20220307223442.28012-1-jeffd@silicom-usa.com> <20220414084301.509fe14a@hermes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 14/04/2022 17:43, Stephen Hemminger: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 15:11:46 +0000 > Jeff Daly wrote: > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > 14/04/2022 14:13, Wang, Haiyue: > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > > > 14/04/2022 03:31, Wang, Haiyue: > > > > > > From: jeffd@silicom-usa.com > > > > > > > From: Stephen Douthit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1G Cu SFPs are not officially supported on the X552/X553 family > > > > > > > of devices but treat them as 1G SX modules since they usually > > > > > > > work. Print a warning though since support isn't validated, > > > > > > > similar to what already happens for other unofficially supported > > > > > > > SFPs enabled via the allow_unsupported_sfps parameter inherited > > > from the mainline Linux driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Douthit > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Daly > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > > > > > > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > > > > > > index 8810d1658e..8d1bc6c80d 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > > > > > > @@ -1538,9 +1538,21 @@ STATIC s32 > > > > > > > ixgbe_supported_sfp_modules_X550em(struct ixgbe_hw *hw, bool > > > > > *linear) > > > > > > > > > > > > NACK. > > > > > > > > > > > > As for 1G Cu SFP treating it as 1G SX, some 1G-Base-T SFP modules > > > > > > require the use of RX_ILOS and some Intel Ethernet products don't > > > support that. > > > > > > > > > > So what is the solution? > > > > > > > > > > > And the DPDK keeps the same design with kernel. > > > > > > > > > > It should not be a justification for limiting DPDK features. > > > > > > > > Um, this is upstream version driver to keep the same behavior. > > > > > > > > There are also some kind of custom release ... > > > > > > I don't understand. > > > Upstream DPDK (and Linux) must support a maximum of hardware and > > > setup. > > > Why rejecting adding such compatibility? > > > > > > > so, I will ask a question directly in case people just aren't inclined to make a suggestion > > (and perhaps this should be also directed to the Linux kernel driver mailing list), but > > if there's a driver option: module_param(allow_unsupported_sfp, uint, 0) to allow > > enabling non-official support of some SFPs, then I can't image that it wouldn't also be > > acceptable to add: module_param(cu_sfp_as sx, uint, 0) to be able to select whether > > to enable this specific handling as well? > > > > if a patch of this nature is acceptable to Linux driver maintainers, then it would also be > > here as well according to your explanation of the NACK, correct? > > Makes sense for DPDK to have a similar option to enable (at your own risk) SFP's. > But: > - there is no equivalent of module_params in DPDK; you will have to think of something We have devargs which is supposed to be used per port with the option -a. In future, I would like to use devargs with another option which is not necessarily tight to a port, so it can be per-driver. The devargs syntax already allows to configure a driver, example: class=eth/driver=foo,param=bar > - should print message that when enabled the driver is no longer supported. It could be supported by Silicom. > use at your own risk.