From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0100.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F095A53 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:29:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SN2PR0601MB1007.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.59.154) by SN2PR0601MB1006.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.59.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.300.14; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:29:01 +0000 Received: from SN2PR0601MB1007.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.59.154]) by SN2PR0601MB1007.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.59.154]) with mapi id 15.01.0300.010; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:29:01 +0000 From: Alex Forster To: Alexander Duyck Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers Thread-Index: AQHRB2BDwfMhGdCgNkG1Uobt5eIVL55suxgA///MuQCAAFAWAP//xQAA Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:29:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <561FD17E.6070908@gmail.com> <561FE9A8.1010409@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <561FE9A8.1010409@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=alex@alexforster.com; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [173.161.199.53] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN2PR0601MB1006; 5:MDaAYWGkJE/FAj9WMBN/2vPLLrQwB2yOSEInd9QY2rQlv+JuhpWb3t9pWyoVWVhjqTKTeSmBaUonqj9FglrMprT7td6IEkj1HrIWWAFdwPr3uTEBQdd2iJ/3/NJAFENpiY6mYYH1oAh/ak73hGYPKQ==; 24:Du+qslE3rLuHMMWcDrg6SJZ4M+cJcAUeLw2/WmtD69WWQgav3mX4vLuzEzNuNxiRrENAS73nPRljfyifwbCi/aYI1/V06I2V9VRCNRm5O+Q=; 20:cCPpMczusf8zKxzKQIVlsERBYwXri22GJJdtN6gEaYAw4KdMcSiTlubQ1p+czt5Ipj2l4QhCrsaBwcB6pmsvpA== x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:SN2PR0601MB1006; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(202767206196957); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(520078)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001); SRVR:SN2PR0601MB1006; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN2PR0601MB1006; x-forefront-prvs: 0730093765 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(189002)(24454002)(479174004)(377454003)(199003)(110136002)(77096005)(2950100001)(102836002)(5001960100002)(2900100001)(92566002)(66066001)(93886004)(5008740100001)(46102003)(189998001)(40100003)(122556002)(64706001)(105586002)(36756003)(5002640100001)(10400500002)(106356001)(5004730100002)(106116001)(81156007)(50986999)(5007970100001)(76176999)(97736004)(19580395003)(54356999)(101416001)(11100500001)(87936001)(86362001)(19580405001)(99286002)(94096001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN2PR0601MB1006; H:SN2PR0601MB1007.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: alexforster.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7AE3458EE494DE48B6A41EE64DA61FE0@namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: alexforster.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Oct 2015 18:29:00.7928 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 8fb42f39-75d5-4c92-b720-fa47f1ea1e7a X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN2PR0601MB1006 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:29:04 -0000 On 10/15/15, 2:00 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: > >Your changes are a bit over-kill and actually take things in the wrong >direction. By commenting out the whole allow_unsupported_sfp block you >are disabling it by default. Remember the module parameter allows it, >by removing it there is no way to enable the feature. > >Like I mentioned in my previous email just take a look at replacing the >"OPTION_DISABLED" value with "OPTION_ENABLED" in the .def part of the >structure. After that you won't need to pass the module parameter as it >will always be enabled by default. > >- Alex It's hard to see in the patch, but I basically replaced that whole option check block with: { /* * allow_unsupported_sfp - Enable/Disable support for unsupported * and untested SFP+ modules. */ adapter->hw.allow_unsupported_sfp =3D true; } Alex Forster