On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:32 AM Tyler Retzlaff
<roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 08:15:00AM -0700, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 6:58 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> 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.
> > I agree.
>
> +1 api design coupling the two together is definitely undesirable it
> seems like half the time you end up with redundant RTE_ETH_LANES_UNKNOWN.

https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=31606
This is how we have implemented internally and we could use this as a reference.
Ethtool 6.x allows lanes configuration this way.
ethtool -s ens6f0np0 speed <speed> duplex full autoneg off lanes < int >
>
> >
> > >
> > >
>
>

-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.