From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0832B62 for ; Sat, 4 May 2019 22:46:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270BE20CA5; Sat, 4 May 2019 16:46:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 04 May 2019 16:46:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=EaWPHVZPpO7EQGb+hhxEUhfUdPMv5y/j+BcB910AksE=; b=EN12NuB7mL4M xLjFATxZzotm4jjvmRTXreqjbULufxlxskdiKPNgdyq5Meg1AnYqCBsdt84S6iGl dOGF1dL3nHOiNGSvwSL+b4AIE0VE5SygIrlph29hE2VmYQ4HMCMxZTCUK3q+qyAX SVi8SohK4ri7HblyIZlAIK1/89KgKSc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=EaWPHVZPpO7EQGb+hhxEUhfUdPMv5y/j+BcB910Ak sE=; b=7TteCI5lVuvCRUhmzh2k/nH0iSmjRNCiACDk4bsA4f9OVs7tVFp3hFJ3m X0MPSaSmeFzE5OzOrk+azoweO3Sd5lPJK0YkZYsDPa0ky1J1fjTmey3IUVF5n1xv KiqjrIY9aeeUmOibeXUqqGg9hsBZL64F7XCpIJ1nlqQ7h6Uh0Fwps5yUtCgwygsH Oy/uKomFyO3yTk0X4uTsA72U1WOSIO4Nks0ETMvJ11rWHmia7mdjiiNExSheWcF0 w8nkbqEaaWIp1jCMEliigYU3Qh+aKvl4TwX/p+e7KDGj3TrvNh1SPSTjpEREWmLm Y2NQ4lGsheyCjXoRt/vCvrK2vNYpg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrjeefgdduheegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 99AB0103D1; Sat, 4 May 2019 16:46:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Wenzhuo Lu , Jingjing Wu , Bernard Iremonger , Andrew Rybchenko , WenjieX A Li Date: Sat, 04 May 2019 22:45:59 +0200 Message-ID: <1873539.KBY3f8jFuF@xps> In-Reply-To: <2207858.tCSXyMIbcb@xps> References: <20190424220309.84270-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <2207858.tCSXyMIbcb@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Revert "app/testpmd: set fixed flag for exact link speed" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 May 2019 20:46:04 -0000 02/05/2019 22:27, Thomas Monjalon: > 02/05/2019 20:31, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 4/29/2019 10:52 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 25/04/2019 17:27, Ferruh Yigit: > > >> On 4/25/2019 2:29 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > >>> 25/04/2019 13:47, Ferruh Yigit: > > >>>> On 4/25/2019 9:19 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > >>>>> 25/04/2019 00:03, Ferruh Yigit: > > >>>>>> This reverts commit bdca79053b6aea504d02691d9319fa976062457f. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Not all PMDs support the fixed link speed set, and link speed can be set > > >>>>>> even with auto negotiation enabled. Reverting the patch to not break > > >>>>>> existing usage. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Which PMDs do not support this flag? > > >>>>> Why not fixing the PMDs? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> At least ixgbe and i40e is not supporting setting a fixed speed. > > >>>> But I am not sure if this is something to fix, the command in testpmd is to set > > >>>> the link speed, what is the problem with setting the link speed without > > >>>> disabling the auto-negotiation? > > >>> > > >>> It means it will negotiate with only one speed proposed. > > >> > > >> Yes. > > >> > > >>> The real issue is to not support the fixed flag. > > >> > > >> I don't know if this is a real issue but > > >> even it is, is it an issue in the scope of this testpmd command? > > >> > > >> right now we are first updating the command to set fixed speed flag, and > > >> requesting PMDs to fix for it, I am suggesting not to update the command at all. > > > > > > I understand. But this change shows a broken behaviour. > > > This is the intent of testpmd to show what works or not in PMDs. > > > How hard is it to fix the PMDs in your opinion? > > > > > > > As far as I can see the the fixed link speed set is not supported in the PMD. > > > > It may be easy to add perhaps, I don't know, but is it really a "broken > > behavior" to not have this support? > > What defines that setting speed has to be "fixed speed", if this demand is not > > there, should testpmd enforce it? > > I think a PMD should support both: fixed or not. > > > In mail thread we have talked that this testpmd command can get an extra > > argument to define the speed fixed or not, this can be used to test fixed speed > > by who wants to test/use fixed speed. > > > > I am for reverting this for the release, and adding a new version next release > > with fixed speed argument, otherwise testpmd won't be used to set the speed for > > some PMDs. > > OK We could have an option in testpmd to test ETH_LINK_SPEED_FIXED. Revert applied. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04513A0AC5 for ; Sat, 4 May 2019 22:46:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D2A1041; Sat, 4 May 2019 22:46:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0832B62 for ; Sat, 4 May 2019 22:46:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270BE20CA5; Sat, 4 May 2019 16:46:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 04 May 2019 16:46:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=EaWPHVZPpO7EQGb+hhxEUhfUdPMv5y/j+BcB910AksE=; b=EN12NuB7mL4M xLjFATxZzotm4jjvmRTXreqjbULufxlxskdiKPNgdyq5Meg1AnYqCBsdt84S6iGl dOGF1dL3nHOiNGSvwSL+b4AIE0VE5SygIrlph29hE2VmYQ4HMCMxZTCUK3q+qyAX SVi8SohK4ri7HblyIZlAIK1/89KgKSc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=EaWPHVZPpO7EQGb+hhxEUhfUdPMv5y/j+BcB910Ak sE=; b=7TteCI5lVuvCRUhmzh2k/nH0iSmjRNCiACDk4bsA4f9OVs7tVFp3hFJ3m X0MPSaSmeFzE5OzOrk+azoweO3Sd5lPJK0YkZYsDPa0ky1J1fjTmey3IUVF5n1xv KiqjrIY9aeeUmOibeXUqqGg9hsBZL64F7XCpIJ1nlqQ7h6Uh0Fwps5yUtCgwygsH Oy/uKomFyO3yTk0X4uTsA72U1WOSIO4Nks0ETMvJ11rWHmia7mdjiiNExSheWcF0 w8nkbqEaaWIp1jCMEliigYU3Qh+aKvl4TwX/p+e7KDGj3TrvNh1SPSTjpEREWmLm Y2NQ4lGsheyCjXoRt/vCvrK2vNYpg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrjeefgdduheegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 99AB0103D1; Sat, 4 May 2019 16:46:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Wenzhuo Lu , Jingjing Wu , Bernard Iremonger , Andrew Rybchenko , WenjieX A Li Date: Sat, 04 May 2019 22:45:59 +0200 Message-ID: <1873539.KBY3f8jFuF@xps> In-Reply-To: <2207858.tCSXyMIbcb@xps> References: <20190424220309.84270-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <2207858.tCSXyMIbcb@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Revert "app/testpmd: set fixed flag for exact link speed" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190504204559.pq7SOQer-w7q-advvUC6UupG-qL4RhIWGANZGR7FgJw@z> 02/05/2019 22:27, Thomas Monjalon: > 02/05/2019 20:31, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 4/29/2019 10:52 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 25/04/2019 17:27, Ferruh Yigit: > > >> On 4/25/2019 2:29 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > >>> 25/04/2019 13:47, Ferruh Yigit: > > >>>> On 4/25/2019 9:19 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > >>>>> 25/04/2019 00:03, Ferruh Yigit: > > >>>>>> This reverts commit bdca79053b6aea504d02691d9319fa976062457f. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Not all PMDs support the fixed link speed set, and link speed can be set > > >>>>>> even with auto negotiation enabled. Reverting the patch to not break > > >>>>>> existing usage. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Which PMDs do not support this flag? > > >>>>> Why not fixing the PMDs? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> At least ixgbe and i40e is not supporting setting a fixed speed. > > >>>> But I am not sure if this is something to fix, the command in testpmd is to set > > >>>> the link speed, what is the problem with setting the link speed without > > >>>> disabling the auto-negotiation? > > >>> > > >>> It means it will negotiate with only one speed proposed. > > >> > > >> Yes. > > >> > > >>> The real issue is to not support the fixed flag. > > >> > > >> I don't know if this is a real issue but > > >> even it is, is it an issue in the scope of this testpmd command? > > >> > > >> right now we are first updating the command to set fixed speed flag, and > > >> requesting PMDs to fix for it, I am suggesting not to update the command at all. > > > > > > I understand. But this change shows a broken behaviour. > > > This is the intent of testpmd to show what works or not in PMDs. > > > How hard is it to fix the PMDs in your opinion? > > > > > > > As far as I can see the the fixed link speed set is not supported in the PMD. > > > > It may be easy to add perhaps, I don't know, but is it really a "broken > > behavior" to not have this support? > > What defines that setting speed has to be "fixed speed", if this demand is not > > there, should testpmd enforce it? > > I think a PMD should support both: fixed or not. > > > In mail thread we have talked that this testpmd command can get an extra > > argument to define the speed fixed or not, this can be used to test fixed speed > > by who wants to test/use fixed speed. > > > > I am for reverting this for the release, and adding a new version next release > > with fixed speed argument, otherwise testpmd won't be used to set the speed for > > some PMDs. > > OK We could have an option in testpmd to test ETH_LINK_SPEED_FIXED. Revert applied.