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 31B18A0508; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:18:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B4640687; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:18:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF2540041 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:18:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EFF5C0235; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:18:45 -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=1649938725; x= 1650025125; bh=pzuL4gzA4NxdZpikAPSgJvjv8BDMQ19Tty2YDeLD/7s=; b=x iRSnJr9AnG+ILMYNnMw6jGTfX97FN2TbNUz7PokxgGeR6fB6C9zJVeqdIYVGwJ+y P1sAVj2ediYFG/v2Ao0kyZczHPIdlDITrW5njkbccDix+LwUaKjZadd9mDut8mX8 QxI2ozj3BJrLrkT4R/84idX/J+qw0zEJNKblP0hJquChBFGxBRBQfeSZvkPiDKQ2 n7AYmsdtNnH2Yop/FbUf35eGKhaIhLaCCLCIeJeU5Vmai1GwggxUF6YlWYLNfA1G F5IVhJUtPri1xACrRvUJEEAxxMhTXz0vBQ5bvfLsIICxNA8Pu06ZBr96luF8JY4b gNkRtaWaX7UuQ8oMmikug== 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=1649938725; x=1650025125; bh=pzuL4gzA4NxdZ pikAPSgJvjv8BDMQ19Tty2YDeLD/7s=; b=CqNxzhNtDxIezAtZKqRcXJGwsEMfu CEOGCg/BnFeupU+tqrg6X6cnRAPKeoYusC2wU1z2pp3NtFh3mlDGH7MbPNbNBhTo xhSmRVRFWXt2Re1ivAXTrzeNjvV/nA1y9ICzWDuPoXPTYYhu9RhN4EB4QSwmk1Sf X1gXcYm1CzyrequsvthvfX2gmA/AQEbg/dZetCPBStI86O51ai0ajJA2cWWfkHMA GC6RQLGevzkkg1iXMXnnhftzoxJt5u1EhDu4BGPhiEy/FEIjbbd9Qu/nhyNjCwsX mUJXk2flRFzwn9eoYn6Qm+xTrUHINJv8ThnP4owhCsGQsbAX6QEcqnZQA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrudelfedghedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:18:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Wang, Haiyue" Cc: "Daly, Jeff" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Stephen Douthit , qi.z.zhang@intel.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the X550 devices Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:18:42 +0200 Message-ID: <2937496.687JKscXgg@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220307223442.28012-1-jeffd@silicom-usa.com> <1889452.fIoEIV5pvu@thomas> 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 14:13, Wang, Haiyue: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 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. > > Um, this is upstream version driver to keep the same behavior. > > There are also some kind of custom release ... I don't understand. Upstream DPDK (and Linux) must support a maximum of hardware and setup. Why rejecting adding such compatibility?