* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] nfp: report link speed using hardware info @ 2016-12-02 9:05 Alejandro Lucero 2016-12-06 11:57 ` Ferruh Yigit 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Alejandro Lucero @ 2016-12-02 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dev Previous reported speed was hardcoded. v3: remove unsed macro v2: using RTE_DIM instead of own macro Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> --- drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c index c6b1587..24f3164 100644 --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c @@ -816,6 +816,17 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct nfp_net_hw *hw) struct rte_eth_link link, old; uint32_t nn_link_status; + static const uint32_t ls_to_ethtool[] = { + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNSUPPORTED] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE, + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE, + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_1G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_1G, + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_10G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_10G, + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_25G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_25G, + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_40G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G, + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_50G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_50G, + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_100G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_100G, + }; + PMD_DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "Link update\n"); hw = NFP_NET_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data->dev_private); @@ -831,8 +842,21 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct nfp_net_hw *hw) link.link_status = ETH_LINK_UP; link.link_duplex = ETH_LINK_FULL_DUPLEX; - /* Other cards can limit the tx and rx rate per VF */ - link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G; + + nn_link_status = (nn_link_status >> NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_SHIFT) & + NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_MASK; + + if ((NFD_CFG_MAJOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) < 4) || + ((NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 4) && + (NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 0))) + link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G; + else { + if (nn_link_status == NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN || + nn_link_status >= RTE_DIM(ls_to_ethtool)) + link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE; + else + link.link_speed = ls_to_ethtool[nn_link_status]; + } if (old.link_status != link.link_status) { nfp_net_dev_atomic_write_link_status(dev, &link); -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] nfp: report link speed using hardware info 2016-12-02 9:05 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] nfp: report link speed using hardware info Alejandro Lucero @ 2016-12-06 11:57 ` Ferruh Yigit 2016-12-09 10:08 ` Alejandro Lucero 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2016-12-06 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alejandro Lucero, dev On 12/2/2016 9:05 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > Previous reported speed was hardcoded. > > v3: remove unsed macro > v2: using RTE_DIM instead of own macro > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> > --- > drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > index c6b1587..24f3164 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > @@ -816,6 +816,17 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct nfp_net_hw *hw) > struct rte_eth_link link, old; > uint32_t nn_link_status; > > + static const uint32_t ls_to_ethtool[] = { > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNSUPPORTED] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE, > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE, > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_1G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_1G, > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_10G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_10G, > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_25G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_25G, > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_40G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G, > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_50G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_50G, > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_100G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_100G, > + }; > + > PMD_DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "Link update\n"); > > hw = NFP_NET_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data->dev_private); > @@ -831,8 +842,21 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct nfp_net_hw *hw) > link.link_status = ETH_LINK_UP; > > link.link_duplex = ETH_LINK_FULL_DUPLEX; > - /* Other cards can limit the tx and rx rate per VF */ > - link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G; > + > + nn_link_status = (nn_link_status >> NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_SHIFT) & > + NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_MASK; > + > + if ((NFD_CFG_MAJOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) < 4) || > + ((NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 4) && > + (NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 0))) > + link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G; Same comment from previous review: For specific firmware version, speed is still hardcoded to 40G, can you please mention from this and if possible its reason in commit log? > + else { > + if (nn_link_status == NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN || Again from previous review: > This is for checking any wrong value from firmware/hardware. I see, but removing this check will not change the logic, else branch is taken and again same value set. Still if you deliberately prefer to keep it, that is OK. > + nn_link_status >= RTE_DIM(ls_to_ethtool)) > + link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE; > + else > + link.link_speed = ls_to_ethtool[nn_link_status]; > + } > > if (old.link_status != link.link_status) { > nfp_net_dev_atomic_write_link_status(dev, &link); > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] nfp: report link speed using hardware info 2016-12-06 11:57 ` Ferruh Yigit @ 2016-12-09 10:08 ` Alejandro Lucero 2016-12-09 10:11 ` Ferruh Yigit 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Alejandro Lucero @ 2016-12-09 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ferruh Yigit; +Cc: dev On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote: > On 12/2/2016 9:05 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > Previous reported speed was hardcoded. > > > > v3: remove unsed macro > > v2: using RTE_DIM instead of own macro > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > index c6b1587..24f3164 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > @@ -816,6 +816,17 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct nfp_net_hw *hw) > > struct rte_eth_link link, old; > > uint32_t nn_link_status; > > > > + static const uint32_t ls_to_ethtool[] = { > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNSUPPORTED] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_1G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_1G, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_10G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_10G, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_25G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_25G, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_40G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_50G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_50G, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_100G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_100G, > > + }; > > + > > PMD_DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "Link update\n"); > > > > hw = NFP_NET_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data->dev_private); > > @@ -831,8 +842,21 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct nfp_net_hw *hw) > > link.link_status = ETH_LINK_UP; > > > > link.link_duplex = ETH_LINK_FULL_DUPLEX; > > - /* Other cards can limit the tx and rx rate per VF */ > > - link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G; > > + > > + nn_link_status = (nn_link_status >> NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_SHIFT) > & > > + NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_MASK; > > + > > + if ((NFD_CFG_MAJOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) < 4) || > > + ((NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 4) && > > + (NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 0))) > > + link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G; > > Same comment from previous review: > > For specific firmware version, speed is still hardcoded to 40G, can you > please mention from this and if possible its reason in commit log? > > Well, we have old firmware still around and we need to avoid reading this info from hardware if not supported. But I guess I could be a more chatty about this in the commit log. I will send another version. > > + else { > > + if (nn_link_status == NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN || > > Again from previous review: > > > This is for checking any wrong value from firmware/hardware. > > I see, but removing this check will not change the logic, else branch is > taken and again same value set. > > OK. I think I can remove the first part of the if clause, because it is implicit in the second part. I guess this is what you really meant, and not just to leave the else statement (without the else, of course). am I right? > Still if you deliberately prefer to keep it, that is OK. > > > + nn_link_status >= RTE_DIM(ls_to_ethtool)) > > + link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE; > > + else > > + link.link_speed = ls_to_ethtool[nn_link_status]; > > + } > > > > if (old.link_status != link.link_status) { > > nfp_net_dev_atomic_write_link_status(dev, &link); > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] nfp: report link speed using hardware info 2016-12-09 10:08 ` Alejandro Lucero @ 2016-12-09 10:11 ` Ferruh Yigit 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2016-12-09 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alejandro Lucero; +Cc: dev On 12/9/2016 10:08 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com > <mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com>> wrote: > > On 12/2/2016 9:05 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > Previous reported speed was hardcoded. > > > > v3: remove unsed macro > > v2: using RTE_DIM instead of own macro > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com > <mailto:alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>> > > --- > > drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > index c6b1587..24f3164 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > @@ -816,6 +816,17 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct > nfp_net_hw *hw) > > struct rte_eth_link link, old; > > uint32_t nn_link_status; > > > > + static const uint32_t ls_to_ethtool[] = { > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNSUPPORTED] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_1G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_1G, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_10G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_10G, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_25G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_25G, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_40G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_50G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_50G, > > + [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_100G] = > ETH_SPEED_NUM_100G, > > + }; > > + > > PMD_DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "Link update\n"); > > > > hw = NFP_NET_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data->dev_private); > > @@ -831,8 +842,21 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct > nfp_net_hw *hw) > > link.link_status = ETH_LINK_UP; > > > > link.link_duplex = ETH_LINK_FULL_DUPLEX; > > - /* Other cards can limit the tx and rx rate per VF */ > > - link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G; > > + > > + nn_link_status = (nn_link_status >> > NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_SHIFT) & > > + NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_MASK; > > + > > + if ((NFD_CFG_MAJOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) < 4) || > > + ((NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 4) && > > + (NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 0))) > > + link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G; > > Same comment from previous review: > > For specific firmware version, speed is still hardcoded to 40G, can you > please mention from this and if possible its reason in commit log? > > > Well, we have old firmware still around and we need to avoid reading > this info from hardware if not supported. > But I guess I could be a more chatty about this in the commit log. I > will send another version. > > > > + else { > > + if (nn_link_status == NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN || > > Again from previous review: > > > This is for checking any wrong value from firmware/hardware. > > I see, but removing this check will not change the logic, else branch is > taken and again same value set. > > > OK. I think I can remove the first part of the if clause, because it is > implicit in the second part. Yes this is what I mean. Thanks. > I guess this is what you really meant, and not just to leave the else > statement (without the else, of course). am I right? > > > Still if you deliberately prefer to keep it, that is OK. > > > + nn_link_status >= RTE_DIM(ls_to_ethtool)) > > + link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE; > > + else > > + link.link_speed = ls_to_ethtool[nn_link_status]; > > + } > > > > if (old.link_status != link.link_status) { > > nfp_net_dev_atomic_write_link_status(dev, &link); > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-12-09 10:11 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-12-02 9:05 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] nfp: report link speed using hardware info Alejandro Lucero 2016-12-06 11:57 ` Ferruh Yigit 2016-12-09 10:08 ` Alejandro Lucero 2016-12-09 10:11 ` Ferruh Yigit
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).