RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the X550 devices

["Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Daly <jeffd@silicom-usa.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 11:23 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Stephen Douthit <stephend@silicom-usa.com>; Yang, Qiming
> <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the X550
> devices
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 7:22 PM
> > To: Jeff Daly <jeffd@silicom-usa.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > <thomas@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Stephen Douthit <stephend@silicom-usa.com>; Yang, Qiming
> > <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the X550
> > devices
> >
> > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking
> > links or opening attachments.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeff Daly <jeffd@silicom-usa.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 10:14 PM
> > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > > <thomas@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Stephen Douthit <stephend@silicom-usa.com>; Yang, Qiming
> > > <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the
> > > X550 devices
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 1:37 AM
> > > > To: Jeff Daly <jeffd@silicom-usa.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > > > <thomas@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Cc: Stephen Douthit <stephend@silicom-usa.com>; Yang, Qiming
> > > > <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
> > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the
> > > > X550 devices
> > > >
> > > > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking
> > > > links or opening attachments.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jeff Daly <jeffd@silicom-usa.com>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2022 2:03 AM
> > > > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > > > > <thomas@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Cc: Stephen Douthit <stephend@silicom-usa.com>; Yang, Qiming
> > > > > <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
> > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the
> > > > > X550 devices
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 8:15 PM
> > > > > > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > Cc: Stephen Douthit <stephend@silicom-usa.com>; Jeff Daly
> > > > > > <jeffd@silicom- usa.com>; Yang, Qiming
> > > > > > <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Wu,
> > > > > > Wenjun1 <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > X550 devices
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when
> > > > > > clicking links or opening attachments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 10:21 PM
> > > > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > > Cc: Stephen Douthit <stephend@silicom-usa.com>; Jeff Daly
> > > > > > > <jeffd@silicom- usa.com>; Wang, Haiyue
> > > > > > > <haiyue.wang@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming
> > > > > > > <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1
> <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > X550 devices
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please, could we have a review of this patch?
> > > > > > > +Cc new ixgbe maintainers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 07/03/2022 23:34, jeffd@silicom-usa.com:
> > > > > > > > From: Stephen Douthit <stephend@silicom-usa.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 <stephend@silicom-usa.com>
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Daly <jeffd@silicom-usa.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we need a devargs for this feature with well
> > > > > > documentation So, it should not break existing behavior by
> > > > > > default, but allow people to take risk if they know what they
> > > > > > are
> > doing.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > there was already a patch submitted to IWL mailing list for this
> > > > > feature in the base driver, which was rejected.
> > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/intel-wired-
> > > > > lan/patch/20220414201329.27714-1-jeffd@silicom-usa.com/
> > > >
> > > > OK, thanks for sharing this,
> > > >
> > > > But base on the concern of the previous comment
> > > >
> > > > " 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."
> > > >
> > > > We may have a risk to accept the code as default behavior
> > > >
> > > > But devargs is allowed in DPDK for device-specific features.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ok, I will submit a revised patch that uses a devargs (or whatever)
> > > switch to allow the behavior when selected explicitly.
> > >
> > > But, can we *please* STOP marking patches as superseded when a
> > > follow-up patch
> > > hasn't been submitted yet!?    I've marked the patch as 'Changes
> > Requested' for
> > > now.
> >
> > Sure, I should follow, thanks to correct his, but a little bit
> > surprise, why this looks like a big deal, it just a shortcut when I
> > expected a new version will come then I skip one status change, I
> > think mailing list already have everything about the patch status for you.
> >
> 
> Maybe I'm not understanding the terms being used then in the mailing list
> status.
> If you expect a new version (that doesn't exist yet) then wouldn't this be
> more
> aptly "Changes Requested" vs. "Superseded".   Superseded implies there's a
> new
> version that exists and this current one no longer applies.  If I just came onto
> the mailing list and read a patch that was marked "Superseded" and looked
> for the new one and didn't find it, I'd be very confused.  If I read a patch that
> was marked "Changes Requested", I'd know that this was the last patch sent
> by the developer and that there would be a follow-up to this one sometime.

OK, I just thought we already get a  agreement in the mailing list for introducing a devargs , so I move ahead
But I understand your concern now.

> 
> > > When I submit a follow-up I will set this one to superseded
> >
> > Actually you did NOT change the below patch to superseded after you
> > send a new version (I did this) and you didn't reply my last question yet.
> > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=23046
> >
> >
> 
> why am I confused here?  The patch you linked above is not related to this
> patch.
> The patch series linked above is an update to the hotplug patches that were
> requested prior.  (I screwed up the initial new series submission I admit, and
> marked those as superseded).
> 
> *This* patch however I've not submitted a new update for yet.
> 
> And I don't see where you asked a question ?

Sorry, I put the wrong link, it should be below patch 
http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20220412174220.31195-3-jeffd@silicom-usa.com/

When you submit the new version, you didn't supersede this, this give me confusion somehow, so I guess we are even now😊

btw, I saw you have replied the answer, so we are aligned on that thread also

> 
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Qi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >  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)
> > > > > > > >     case ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_lha_core1:
> > > > > > > >             *linear = false;
> > > > > > > >             break;
> > > > > > > > -   case ixgbe_sfp_type_unknown:
> > > > > > > > +   /* Copper SFPs are not officially supported for x550em
> > > > > > > > + devices, but
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > +    * often be made to work at fixed 1G speeds.  Pretend
> > > > > > > > + they're
> > > > 1g_sx
> > > > > > > > +    * modules here to allow g.Fast DSL SFPs to work.
> > > > > > > > +    */
> > > > > > > >     case ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_cu_core0:
> > > > > > > > +           EWARN(hw, "Pretending that unsupported 1g_cu
> > > > > > > > + SFP is
> > > > > > > 1g_sx\n");
> > > > > > > > +           *linear = false;
> > > > > > > > +           hw->phy.sfp_type = ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_sx_core0;
> > > > > > > > +           break;
> > > > > > > >     case ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_cu_core1:
> > > > > > > > +           EWARN(hw, "Pretending that unsupported 1g_cu
> > > > > > > > + SFP is
> > > > > > > 1g_sx\n");
> > > > > > > > +           *linear = false;
> > > > > > > > +           hw->phy.sfp_type = ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_sx_core1;
> > > > > > > > +           break;
> > > > > > > > +   case ixgbe_sfp_type_unknown:
> > > > > > > >     default:
> > > > > > > >             return IXGBE_ERR_SFP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
> > > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >