From: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] nfp: extend speed capabilities advertised
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:59:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD+H990MEixLR3cv6kv4wa8gsCO38D+2_FBAig4-N5UBVmWr1A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a26f9190-39ee-7f06-be07-80016f60242e@intel.com>
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
wrote:
> On 12/19/2016 4:18 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/19/2016 3:02 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com
> >>> <mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Alejandro,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/19/2016 12:05 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> >>> > NFP supports more speeds than just 40 and 100GB, which were
> >>> > what was advertised before.
> >>> >
> >>> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com
> >> <mailto:alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>>
> >>> > ---
> >>> > drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c | 4 +++-
> >>> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>> >
> >>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c
> b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c
> >>> > index 27afbfd..77015c4 100644
> >>> > --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c
> >>> > +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c
> >>> > @@ -1077,7 +1077,9 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct
> >> nfp_net_hw *hw)
> >>> > dev_info->reta_size = NFP_NET_CFG_RSS_ITBL_SZ;
> >>> > dev_info->hash_key_size = NFP_NET_CFG_RSS_KEY_SZ;
> >>> >
> >>> > - dev_info->speed_capa = ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G |
> >> ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G;
> >>> > + dev_info->speed_capa = ETH_SPEED_NUM_1G |
> ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G
> >> |
> >>> > + ETH_SPEED_NUM_25G |
> ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G
> >> |
> >>> > + ETH_SPEED_NUM_50G |
> >> ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G;
> >>>
> >>> Does all devices driver by this driver supports all these speeds?
> >>>
> >>> I am aware of at least one exception to this, from previous patch
> >> [1],
> >>> should we take that into account?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So we have different NFP devices and different firmwares.
> >>> NFP by design support all those speeds, but the PMD relies on the
> >>> firmware for being able to know which is the current configured speed
> >>> after link negotiation. PMD development was done with a specific
> >>> firmware, and I was told to just report such speed by default. Last
> >>> firmware versions give that speed info, but old firmware versions do
> not.
> >>>
> >>> So, all devices support such a speed range, indeed PMD works with any
> of
> >>> them, but reported speed is always 40G with old firmware. This is a
> >>> firmware limitation but we have to support old and new firmware.
> >>
> >> But this information to the application will be wrong for some (old) FW.
> >> What do you think checking the FW version here and report capability
> >> based on what FW supports?
> >>
> >>
> > The driver advertises the right speed range supported. The problem is
> with
> > the report about the current link speed configured.
> > Maybe, is the right thing to do here to not report the current link speed
> > because the driver really does not know about it?
>
> Sorry, confused. Is it like following:
>
> "
> For new FW, there is no problem, it supports the range between 1G - 50G,
> and reports correct current speed.
>
> With old FW, device still can be set to speed range between 1G - 50G,
> but it doesn't report current speed correct, and DPDK driver reports
> back to application as device current speed is 40G, without really
> knowing the current speed.
> "
>
>
Yes, that is. Should then I do anything else or the patch is right for you
now?
> Thanks,
> ferruh
>
> >
> > If you agree with this, I'm afraid the just accepted patch about the link
> > report needs to be modified.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Also other than that exception, can you please confirm all other
> >> devices
> >>> support all above speeds?
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> + if ((NFD_CFG_MAJOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) < 4) ||
> >>> + ((NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 4) &&
> >>> + (NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 0)))
> >>> + link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > }
> >>> >
> >>> > static const uint32_t *
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-19 17:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-19 12:05 Alejandro Lucero
2016-12-19 14:36 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-12-19 15:02 ` Alejandro Lucero
2016-12-19 15:05 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-12-19 16:18 ` Alejandro Lucero
2016-12-19 16:35 ` Marc
2016-12-19 17:58 ` Alejandro Lucero
2016-12-19 16:43 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-12-19 17:59 ` Alejandro Lucero [this message]
2016-12-19 18:00 ` Alejandro Lucero
2016-12-20 10:25 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-12-20 10:29 ` Alejandro Lucero
2016-12-20 11:02 ` Alejandro Lucero
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=CAD+H990MEixLR3cv6kv4wa8gsCO38D+2_FBAig4-N5UBVmWr1A@mail.gmail.com \
--to=alejandro.lucero@netronome.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@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).