Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] net/ixgbe: Check that SFF-8472 soft rate select is supported before write

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 2/9/2022 4:00 AM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 22:52
>> To: Daly, Jeff <jeffd@silicom-usa.com>; Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>; Stephen Douthit
>> <stephend@silicom-usa.com>; Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
>> <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Wen <wenw@silicom-usa.com>; stable@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] net/ixgbe: Check that SFF-8472 soft rate select is supported before write
>>
>> On 2/8/2022 1:50 PM, Jeff Daly wrote:
>>
>> moved response down, please don't top post.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 11:04 AM
>>> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>; Stephen Douthit <stephend@silicom-usa.com>; Morten Brørup
>> <mb@smartsharesystems.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>;
>> Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wen Wang <wenw@silicom-usa.com>; stable@dpdk.org
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] net/ixgbe: Check that SFF-8472 soft rate select is supported before
>> write
>>>
>>> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/19/2022 12:31 AM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Stephen Douthit <stephend@silicom-usa.com>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 05:06
>>>>> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>; Morten Brørup
>>>>> <mb@smartsharesystems.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>;
>>>>> Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>>>>> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Wen <wenw@silicom-usa.com>; stable@dpdk.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] net/ixgbe: Check that SFF-8472 soft rate
>>>>> select is supported before write
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/22/21 19:55, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>>>>>> OK, let's see in 2022, happy holidays. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> A bit of a slower start to 2022 than I had hoped, but I have a v3 of
>>>>> the hotplug fix in progress.  It's now working for the 82599 and
>>>>> C3000 ixgbe devices under Linux, and I'm in the process of getting
>>>>> this built and tested under FreeBSD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming the FreeBSD testing comes together smoothly my plan is to
>>>>> split these patches into three series:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) The SFP hotplug fix
>>>>> 2) Refactor SDP3 TX_DISABLE 82599 link check stuff
>>>>> 3) Support of additional SFP types under ixgbe
>>>>>
>>>>> My focus right now is on the SFP hotplug fix, so please let me know
>>>>> if there's any additional feedback on that portion of the original series.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now the feedback I have that impacts the hotplug fix is a
>>>>> cleanup for patch 1, and the general comment that changes to files
>>>>> under ixgbe/base are usually backported from Linux, and so I should
>>>>> refactor my changes to live in ixgbe_ethdev.c
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, just put the change in base code to *separate patch*, so that
>>>> they are easily to be reviewed, thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Steve, Wen, Haiyue,
>>>
>>> Can you please clarify the above change request?
>>>
>>> I though it is related to splitting base code updates into their own patches, but that already seems
>> the case in set (except from a few minor mix).
>>>
>>> And what is the status, is there a new version worked on? Or is the set waiting for more review?
>>>
>>> Ferruh,
>>> 	Stephen has passed on support of his patches to me, I will be the main point of contact going
>> forward.  I'm still ramping up on the code, expect patch updates to come from me in the future.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> What is the planned changes in the next version?
>>
>> I just want to be sure that we are on same page with the change request,
>> to not waste effort/time.
>>
>> Haiyue, perhaps can you articulate the request again?
> 
> Just put the change in base directory into separate patch (es), so that we can ask
> different experts to review the patchset easily.
> 

That seems already the case, only two patch has mix and that is a little
(and related), can you please highlight the patches that requires split?