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 7CA04A00C2; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:02:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5C64068E; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:02:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.tutus.se (mail.tutus.se [193.181.0.5]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18754068B for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:02:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.tutus.se (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.tutus.se (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 491B6141D38 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:02:48 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tutus.se; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date:from :from:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s= key1; bh=NgAvI9CSWzqsrtLsBOvEKuFDSw5bGRd5/R+NBFHDCAg=; b=jhq//vT A5WPi3qEliMt6ux9z5JXhgeJHBi8o6hhBaJ7R2VM3umlzVbTg80M+dMAZJvHKCP0 wTnmc8c0XXzxuvPU+huAs4AyKNSQpp3hMJhDU3E8n/bdsewWrqwvlquEI4A4nN/n avzHz7jq4gkEygwh4etRsdN1FphkXBfV5sISeJDRKf04B5px7+dsdpwuklxJeSxF yKKIYyAFaRBJU6WewHD6Ra4tu/vjYBRdfNCFG1hjXab2gL59pWETFObbF1xUwjuq HiKz2ld8YMPdpr+FQn0x662g3+H1PgCNWPhkY+vqy/T/Onb1ZsiP256S92qiAqrS 8TstnePodV5eSrw== Message-ID: <4628af64-1793-115e-68c5-557bbfcadf21@tutus.se> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:03:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: dev@dpdk.org From: Francesco Mancino Subject: Question about commit 44dddd14059 in DPDK e1000 driver Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 I have a question about some changes to the e1000 driver that where committed in 2020 (commit 44dddd14059f151f39f7e075b887decfc9a10f11). I see that e1000_power_down_phy_copper_82575 has been replaced by e1000_power_down_phy_copper_base, but the two functions are not the same. more specifically in the old function we had this code: -STATIC void e1000_power_down_phy_copper_82575(struct e1000_hw *hw) -{ -       struct e1000_phy_info *phy = &hw->phy; - -       if (!(phy->ops.check_reset_block)) -               return; - -       /* If the management interface is not enabled, then power down */ -       if (!(e1000_enable_mng_pass_thru(hw) || phy->ops.check_reset_block(hw))) -               e1000_power_down_phy_copper(hw); - -       return; -} And the new looks like this: +void e1000_power_down_phy_copper_base(struct e1000_hw *hw) +{ +       struct e1000_phy_info *phy = &hw->phy; + +       if (!(phy->ops.check_reset_block)) +               return; + +       /* If the management interface is not enabled, then power down */ +       if (phy->ops.check_reset_block(hw)) +               e1000_power_down_phy_copper(hw); +} The 'if' condition is different, and almost opposite. Is this intentional? In my usecase I do not manage to put the link down with the most recent DPDK (21.11), but it worked fine with 19.11. Should a configure something differently? Best regards, Francesco Mancino