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>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IGC: Remove I225_I_PHY_ID checking
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 09:39:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <31c280bd-2d69-e302-8ec6-cbff21badd4a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB420636A9A003BFC34FFD9076D9229@MN2PR11MB4206.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
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?
>> - /* 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:[~2022-10-12 8:39 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 [this message]
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
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=31c280bd-2d69-e302-8ec6-cbff21badd4a@redhat.com \
--to=ktraynor@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=iotg.dpdk.ref.app@intel.com \
--cc=qi.z.zhang@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).