From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <qiming.yang@intel.com>
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3CB2946
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 10:48:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2017 01:48:26 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,458,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="1079024586"
Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205])
by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2017 01:48:25 -0800
Received: from fmsmsx112.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.6) by
fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
id 14.3.248.2; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 01:48:25 -0800
Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.69) by
FMSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
id 14.3.248.2; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 01:48:23 -0800
Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.177]) by
SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.239.4.69]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002;
Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:48:23 +0800
From: "Yang, Qiming" <qiming.yang@intel.com>
To: "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"thomas.monjalon@6wind.com" <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
CC: "Horton, Remy" <remy.horton@intel.com>
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3 3/4] net/ixgbe: add firmware version get
Thread-Index: AQHSYD3DiuRL/TYuM0mLO0UT6tWedKEmXsCAgAFHC3D//+dBgIAAj2eA
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 09:48:23 +0000
Message-ID: <F5DF4F0E3AFEF648ADC1C3C33AD4DBF16EDC9B80@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1481008582-69416-1-git-send-email-qiming.yang@intel.com>
<1482841816-54143-1-git-send-email-qiming.yang@intel.com>
<1482841816-54143-4-git-send-email-qiming.yang@intel.com>
<9c401d90-0264-8fc8-3733-abb59bfd277e@intel.com>
<F5DF4F0E3AFEF648ADC1C3C33AD4DBF16EDC98D4@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
<f3cbfc26-3fba-8590-6142-6e0abc5b4cfd@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <f3cbfc26-3fba-8590-6142-6e0abc5b4cfd@intel.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNWM0YWFlZmEtNTBjOS00OWNiLWEzZmMtNThhMWQ1NGQ0NzU0IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IlVOM0t1azdSb3ppQ1Y0dnFzMktxM2dvRjMwN1pUQW42ckhXZnN2TDl6TmM9In0=
x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC
x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] net/ixgbe: add firmware version get
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 09:48:28 -0000
Yes, etrack_id is an unique value. But not all NICs have this value.
I didn't find any value about fw version in fm10k.
I40e is 8 bit too.
firmware-version: 5.04 0x800024ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Yigit, Ferruh=20
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 5:06 PM
To: Yang, Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; thomas.monjalon@6wi=
nd.com
Cc: Horton, Remy <remy.horton@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] net/ixgbe: add firmware version get
On 1/4/2017 2:44 AM, Yang, Qiming wrote:
> You can see the kernel version ethtool, use command 'ethtool -i <ixgbe N=
IC name>'
> driver: ixgbe
> version: 4.2.1-k
> firmware-version: 0x61bf0001
>=20
> Ixgbe's FW version do not have the major and minor number, and the origin=
al purpose of this function is get FW version, so I think it's enough.
Is etrack_id a unique value that defines the FW version on its own?
And is above definition true for all NICs (or at least Intel ones)?
Because I can see i40e is using 4 bit value for etrack_id ?
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh=20
> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 11:04 PM
> To: Yang, Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; thomas.monjalon@6=
wind.com
> Cc: Horton, Remy <remy.horton@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] net/ixgbe: add firmware version get
>=20
> On 12/27/2016 12:30 PM, Qiming Yang wrote:
>> This patch add a new function ixgbe_fw_version_get.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>
>=20
> <...>
>=20
>> =20
>> static void
>> +ixgbe_fw_version_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, __rte_unused u32 *fw_majo=
r,
>> + __rte_unused u32 *fw_minor, __rte_unused u32 *fw_patch, u32=20
>> +*etrack_id)
>=20
> This API at least provide major and minor fw versions I think. Isn't ther=
e any kind of FW version information for ixgbe? Just providing etrack_id is=
not looking good.
>=20
>> +{
>> + struct ixgbe_hw *hw =3D IXGBE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data->dev_private=
);
>> + u16 eeprom_verh, eeprom_verl;
>> +
>> + ixgbe_read_eeprom(hw, 0x2e, &eeprom_verh);
>> + ixgbe_read_eeprom(hw, 0x2d, &eeprom_verl);
>> +
>> + *etrack_id =3D (eeprom_verh << 16) | eeprom_verl; }
>> +
>> +static void
>> ixgbe_dev_info_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_dev_info=20
>> *dev_info) {
>> struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev =3D IXGBE_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
>>
>=20