From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC2AA050A; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:42:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E9640041; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:42:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470624003F for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:42:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29495C0233; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 05:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 14 Apr 2022 05:42:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1649929327; x= 1650015727; bh=NsxmDttDFsoeb888Qd6D3v2bCTDdmbthZQzN/AiIUXQ=; b=G 9aN+t1L9p16Reco/b3eqzpTBzssJrAIF0msVvCvt3DwuLaM+lICnjo69nVQlPfRZ 9RYJaUVbCBTVb2uAv7crP6vS2vPOAcc8kCUD5J0cFgViXHbam2Wz5qnyxKp2h032 NXvFCPxWgJG6VlW9WyHePv8ElXmeK6JyKP75MlWNFYJG5K40TgNVHnmadvMDOXfU xhuBqdHzFsGdHGbkQD5bh6b6nv+LtPDcX22I0oVU3WnYAZRMK+Apyshkrbve99o7 EiklaJ1DYnLHZjB7l5NPNN5OboS9JM9A7zdcYqNpFjHf/lSZdK72dVDlCf/XZPg3 qGn35SmCraoSOvzSj0pCQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1649929327; x=1650015727; bh=NsxmDttDFsoeb 888Qd6D3v2bCTDdmbthZQzN/AiIUXQ=; b=ap/pFqKrcxRxiDYV7UGfD42s7kpDE rDjXcpjmpK3x+M02bjczvbGHXLN0OgzsEZeSr9/zw3aD4cpjxaK3VkWNAO1zsryw UT/w2K0AwqV8CFZ0f14mEOHy1z5Jh2ek1ABA6Rui4geI36Q9wbp/yUMiajtguWtM 8DbxcgHD6IGmlqJPTkxmVlXLNt6Hx+3q4yB7UNlK2nBgJL94lT5uMjr47n6nhnyU t/0hvxErY9az6T1/oMxY1TSad8LjNgp6BF4LSntW0NLiawtncbjdTyFw+38fWX6T /XDIZ5peflxAVh0ksZDGGrxtxYpbXZby7iFFexNowpZ0J+NrXt8dfub/Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrudelfedgudekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 05:42:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Wang, Haiyue" Cc: "Daly, Jeff" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Stephen Douthit Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the X550 devices Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:42:05 +0200 Message-ID: <1889452.fIoEIV5pvu@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220307223442.28012-1-jeffd@silicom-usa.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 14/04/2022 03:31, Wang, Haiyue: > From: jeffd@silicom-usa.com > > From: Stephen Douthit > > > > 1G Cu SFPs are not officially supported on the X552/X553 family of devices > > but treat them as 1G SX modules since they usually work. Print a warning > > though since support isn't validated, similar to what already happens for > > other unofficially supported SFPs enabled via the allow_unsupported_sfps > > parameter inherited from the mainline Linux driver. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Douthit > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Daly > > --- > > drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > index 8810d1658e..8d1bc6c80d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > @@ -1538,9 +1538,21 @@ STATIC s32 ixgbe_supported_sfp_modules_X550em(struct ixgbe_hw *hw, bool *linear) > > NACK. > > As for 1G Cu SFP treating it as 1G SX, some 1G-Base-T SFP modules require the use > of RX_ILOS and some Intel Ethernet products don't support that. So what is the solution? > And the DPDK keeps the same design with kernel. It should not be a justification for limiting DPDK features.