From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
To: "Mah, Yock Gen" <yock.gen.mah@intel.com>,
IOTG DPDK Ref App <iotg.dpdk.ref.app@intel.com>,
"Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
"Taripin, Samuel" <samuel.taripin@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IGC: Remove I225_I_PHY_ID checking
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 15:47:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6f5133e1-ec40-dd70-9081-d42bfee2ee71@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d5a25c96-8b8e-ac63-c820-c594b5df3841@redhat.com>
On 19/10/2022 09:34, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> On 18/10/2022 23:45, Mah, Yock Gen wrote:
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October, 2022 8:54 PM
>> To: Mah, Yock Gen <yock.gen.mah@intel.com>; IOTG DPDK Ref App <iotg.dpdk.ref.app@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IGC: Remove I225_I_PHY_ID checking
>>
>> On 12/10/2022 09:39, Kevin Traynor wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2022 08:45, Mah, Yock Gen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 October, 2022 7:05 PM
>>>> To: IOTG DPDK Ref App <iotg.dpdk.ref.app@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>>>> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IGC: Remove I225_I_PHY_ID checking
>>>>
>>>> On 31/08/2022 23:51, iotg.dpdk.ref.app@intel.com wrote:
>>>>> From: NSWE SWS DPDK Dev <iotg.dpdk.ref.app@intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> i225 devices have only one PHY vendor. There is unnecessary to check
>>>>> _I_PHY_ID during the link establishment and auto-negotiation
>>>>> process, the checking also caused devices like i225-IT failed. This
>>>>> patch is to remove the mentioned unnecessary checking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>> Signed-off-by: NSWE SWS DPDK Dev <iotg.dpdk.ref.app@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/igc/base/igc_i225.c | 15 ++-------------
>>>>> drivers/net/igc/base/igc_phy.c | 6 ++----
>>>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_i225.c
>>>>> b/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_i225.c index 5f3d535490..af26602afb
>>>>> 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_i225.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_i225.c
>>>>> @@ -173,19 +173,8 @@ static s32 igc_init_phy_params_i225(struct igc_hw *hw)
>>>>> phy->ops.write_reg = igc_write_phy_reg_gpy;
>>>>>
>>>>> ret_val = igc_get_phy_id(hw);
>>>>> - /* Verify phy id and set remaining function pointers */
>>>>> - switch (phy->id) {
>>>>> - case I225_I_PHY_ID:
>>>>> - case I226_LM_PHY_ID:
>>>>> - phy->type = igc_phy_i225;
>>>>> - phy->ops.set_d0_lplu_state = igc_set_d0_lplu_state_i225;
>>>>> - phy->ops.set_d3_lplu_state = igc_set_d3_lplu_state_i225;
>>>>
>>>>> - The commit log says it is removing a check on the ID, but it does not say why these function pointers are being removed.
>>>>
>>>>> - Why are they removed, were they not needed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i225 devices have only one PHY vendor. There is no point checking _I_PHY_ID during the link establishment and auto-negotiation process.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, that's clear about the vendor ID check. But it's not clear to
>>> me why the the resulting code like this:
>>>
>>> phy->type = igc_phy_i225;
>>>
>>> and not like this:
>>>
>>> phy->type = igc_phy_i225;
>>> phy->ops.set_d0_lplu_state = igc_set_d0_lplu_state_i225;
>>> phy->ops.set_d3_lplu_state = igc_set_d3_lplu_state_i225;
>>>
>>> So it is using dummy null functions instead:
>>> https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_phy.c#n61
>>>
>>> Do the device registers not need to be set anymore?
>>>
>>
>>> For main branch, it would be nice to have an answer to above.
>>
>>> It only adds a small readability benefit by removing some code branches, but does change functionality which adds risk, so I don't think it's a good candidate for stable branches.
>>
>> This is not only added readability, but to fix real world issue, we were experiencing i225-IT not runnable issue without patching another case checking as below:
>>
>> +++ b/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_phy.c
>> @@ -1881,6 +1881,7 @@ s32 igc_phy_force_speed_duplex_m88(struct igc_hw *hw)
>> case I210_I_PHY_ID:
>> /* fall-through */
>> case I225_I_PHY_ID:
>> + case I225_IT_PHY_ID:
>>
>> However, cleaner solution is to remove those unnecessary checking completely as it does in kernel also https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=7c496de538eebd8212dc2a3c9a468386b264d0d4
>>
>
> ok, you are correct that it is more than readability. I can apply but
> first it would be good if you can answer the original question and
> explain why the functionality is changed for I225_I_PHY_ID by removing
> the function pointers that set the registers.
>
Hi, I didn't apply this to DPDK 21.11.3 because there was no explanation
of why the registers were changing after asking multiple times.
If it is required for a later 21.11 LTS release, please send a backport
to stable mailing list with an updated commit message explaining the
changes.
thanks,
Kevin.
>>>>> - /* TODO - complete with GPY PHY information */
>>>>> - break;
>>>>> - default:
>>>>> - ret_val = -IGC_ERR_PHY;
>>>>> - goto out;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> + phy->type = igc_phy_i225;
>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> out:
>>>>> return ret_val;
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_phy.c
>>>>> b/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_phy.c index 43bbe69bca..2906bae21a 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_phy.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_phy.c
>>>>> @@ -1474,8 +1474,7 @@ s32 igc_phy_setup_autoneg(struct igc_hw *hw)
>>>>> return ret_val;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> - if ((phy->autoneg_mask & ADVERTISE_2500_FULL) &&
>>>>> - hw->phy.id == I225_I_PHY_ID) {
>>>>> + if (phy->autoneg_mask & ADVERTISE_2500_FULL) {
>>>>> /* Read the MULTI GBT AN Control Register - reg 7.32 */
>>>>> ret_val = phy->ops.read_reg(hw, (STANDARD_AN_REG_MASK <<
>>>>> MMD_DEVADDR_SHIFT) |
>>>>> @@ -1615,8 +1614,7 @@ s32 igc_phy_setup_autoneg(struct igc_hw *hw)
>>>>> ret_val = phy->ops.write_reg(hw, PHY_1000T_CTRL,
>>>>> mii_1000t_ctrl_reg);
>>>>>
>>>>> - if ((phy->autoneg_mask & ADVERTISE_2500_FULL) &&
>>>>> - hw->phy.id == I225_I_PHY_ID)
>>>>> + if (phy->autoneg_mask & ADVERTISE_2500_FULL)
>>>>> ret_val = phy->ops.write_reg(hw,
>>>>> (STANDARD_AN_REG_MASK <<
>>>>> MMD_DEVADDR_SHIFT) |
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-20 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-29 8:14 [PATCH] " iotg.dpdk.ref.app
2022-08-30 11:17 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2022-08-31 22:42 ` Mah, Yock Gen
2022-09-01 8:22 ` David Marchand
2022-09-02 7:01 ` David Marchand
2022-08-31 22:51 ` [PATCH v2] " iotg.dpdk.ref.app
2022-09-02 0:18 ` [PATCH v3] " yock.gen.mah
2022-09-04 1:55 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2022-10-11 11:04 ` [PATCH v2] " Kevin Traynor
2022-10-12 7:45 ` Mah, Yock Gen
2022-10-12 8:39 ` Kevin Traynor
2022-10-18 12:54 ` Kevin Traynor
2022-10-18 22:45 ` Mah, Yock Gen
2022-10-19 8:34 ` Kevin Traynor
2022-12-20 15:47 ` Kevin Traynor [this message]
2022-12-21 3:01 ` Mah, Yock Gen
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=6f5133e1-ec40-dd70-9081-d42bfee2ee71@redhat.com \
--to=ktraynor@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=iotg.dpdk.ref.app@intel.com \
--cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=samuel.taripin@intel.com \
--cc=yock.gen.mah@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).