From: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
To: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
huangdengdui <huangdengdui@huawei.com>,
Damodharam Ammepalli <damodharam.ammepalli@broadcom.com>,
roretzla@linux.microsoft.com, dev@dpdk.org,
ferruh.yigit@amd.com, aman.deep.singh@intel.com,
yuying.zhang@intel.com, andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru,
stephen@networkplumber.org, jerinjacobk@gmail.com,
liuyonglong@huawei.com, fengchengwen@huawei.com,
haijie1@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: support setting lanes
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:11:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACZ4nhu3QYTJQeuXgir6uQ1CBaw-xZbLHsH6-pjcZ-_cRYd+Sw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACZ4nhsKMwdfGhbMELthybKWiAWd7gGscTjYQCc-SzNHe8nr_w@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7358 bytes --]
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:47 AM Ajit Khaparde
<ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:15 AM lihuisong (C) <lihuisong@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 在 2024/3/26 18:30, Thomas Monjalon 写道:
> > > 26/03/2024 02:42, lihuisong (C):
> > >> 在 2024/3/25 17:30, Thomas Monjalon 写道:
> > >>> 25/03/2024 07:24, huangdengdui:
> > >>>> On 2024/3/22 21:58, Thomas Monjalon 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.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Hi,Thomas, Ajit, roretzla, damodharam
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I also considered the option at the beginning of the design.
> > >>>> But this option is not used due to the following reasons:
> > >>>> 1. For the user, ethtool couples speed and lanes.
> > >>>> The result of querying the NIC capability is as follows:
> > >>>> Supported link modes:
> > >>>> 100000baseSR4/Full
> > >>>> 100000baseSR2/Full
> > >>>> The NIC capability is configured as follows:
> > >>>> ethtool -s eth1 speed 100000 lanes 4 autoneg off
> > >>>> ethtool -s eth1 speed 100000 lanes 2 autoneg off
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Therefore, users are more accustomed to the coupling of speed and lanes.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2. For the PHY, When the physical layer capability is configured through the MDIO,
> > >>>> the speed and lanes are also coupled.
> > >>>> For example:
> > >>>> Table 45–7—PMA/PMD control 2 register bit definitions[1]
> > >>>> PMA/PMD type selection
> > >>>> 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 = 100GBASE-SR2 PMA/PMD
> > >>>> 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 = 100GBASE-SR4 PMA/PMD
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Therefore, coupling speeds and lanes is easier to understand.
> > >>>> And it is easier for the driver to report the support lanes.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In addition, the code implementation is compatible with the old version.
> > >>>> When the driver does not support the lanes setting, the code does not need to be modified.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So I think the speed and lanes coupling is better.
> > >>> I don't think so.
> > >>> You are mixing hardware implementation, user tool, and API.
> > >>> Having a separate and simple API is cleaner and not more difficult to handle
> > >>> in some get/set style functions.
> > >> Having a separate and simple API is cleaner. It's good.
> > >> But supported lane capabilities have a lot to do with the specified
> > >> speed. This is determined by releated specification.
> > >> If we add a separate API for speed lanes, it probably is hard to check
> > >> the validity of the configuration for speed and lanes.
> > >> And the setting lane API sepparated from speed is not good for
> > >> uniforming all PMD's behavior in ethdev layer.
> > > Please let's be more specific.
> > > There are 3 needs:
> > > - set PHY lane config
> > > - get PHY lane config
> > > - get PHY lane capabilities
> > IMO, this lane capabilities should be reported based on supported speed
> > capabilities.
> > >
> > > There is no problem providing a function to get the number of PHY lanes.
> > > It is possible to set PHY lanes number after defining a fixed speed.
> > yes it's ok.
> > >
> > >> The patch[1] is an example for this separate API.
> > >> I think it is not very good. It cannot tell user and PMD the follow points:
> > >> 1) user don't know what lanes should or can be set for a specified speed
> > >> on one NIC.
> > > This is about capabilities.
> > > Can we say a HW will support a maximum number of PHY lanes in general?
> > > We may need to associate the maximum speed per lane?
> > > Do we really need to associate PHY lane and PHY speed numbers for capabilities?
> > Personally, it should contain the below releationship at least.
> > speed 10G --> 1lane | 4lane
> > speed 100G --> 2lane | 4lane
> > > Example: if a HW supports 100G-4-lanes and 200G-2-lanes,
> > > may we assume it is also supporting 200G-4-lanes?
> > I think we cannot assume that NIC also support 200G-4-lanes.
> > Beause it has a lot to do with HW design.
> > >
> > >> 2) how should PMD do for a supported lanes in their HW?
> > > I don't understand this question. Please rephrase.
> > I mean that PMD don't know set how many lanes when the lanes from user
> > is not supported on a fixed speed by PMD.
> > So ethdev layer should limit the avaiable lane number based on a fixed
> > speed.
>
> ethdev layer has generally been opaque. We should keep it that way.
I mis-typed.
%s/opaque/transparent
> The PMD should know what the HW supports.
> So it should show the capabilities correctly. Right?
> And if the user provides incorrect settings, it should reject it.
>
> > >
> > >> Anyway, if we add setting speed lanes feature, we must report and set
> > >> speed and lanes capabilities for user well.
> > >> otherwise, user will be more confused.
> > > Well is not necessarily exposing all raw combinations as ethtool does.
> > Agreed.
> > >
> > >> [1] https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=31606
> > >
> > >
> > > .
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4218 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-26 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-12 7:52 [PATCH 0/3] " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-12 7:52 ` [PATCH 1/3] ethdev: " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-19 3:02 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-03-20 1:16 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-12 7:52 ` [PATCH 2/3] net/hns3: " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-12 7:52 ` [PATCH 3/3] app/testpmd: " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-15 21:47 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-03-19 2:38 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 13:58 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-22 15:15 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-22 17:32 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2024-03-22 22:30 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-03-25 6:24 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-25 9:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-25 21:14 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-03-26 1:42 ` lihuisong (C)
2024-03-26 3:45 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-26 10:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-26 11:15 ` lihuisong (C)
2024-03-26 13:47 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-26 18:11 ` Ajit Khaparde [this message]
2024-03-26 18:21 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-03-30 11:38 ` huangdengdui
2024-04-01 20:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-04-01 22:29 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-04-02 8:37 ` huangdengdui
2024-04-02 15:28 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-04-04 13:45 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-03-29 3:25 ` lihuisong (C)
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] test: updated UT for " Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] ethdev: add function to parse link mode info Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] net/hns3: use parse link mode info function Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] net/hns3: support setting lanes Dengdui Huang
2024-03-22 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] app/testpmd: " Dengdui Huang
2024-04-04 13:58 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] " Ferruh Yigit
2024-05-16 12:48 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-18 14:56 ` [PATCH 0/3] " Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-18 21:26 ` Damodharam Ammepalli
2024-03-18 21:42 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-03-18 22:55 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-20 11:41 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-20 12:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-03-21 2:02 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-21 8:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-22 2:28 ` huangdengdui
2024-03-22 4:38 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-03-22 5:25 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-03-22 5:51 ` Jerin Jacob
2024-03-22 13:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-03-25 14:04 ` Jerin Jacob
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=CACZ4nhu3QYTJQeuXgir6uQ1CBaw-xZbLHsH6-pjcZ-_cRYd+Sw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
--cc=aman.deep.singh@intel.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=damodharam.ammepalli@broadcom.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=fengchengwen@huawei.com \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=haijie1@huawei.com \
--cc=huangdengdui@huawei.com \
--cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=lihuisong@huawei.com \
--cc=liuyonglong@huawei.com \
--cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=yuying.zhang@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).