> -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 2:41 AM > To: Ido Goshen <i...@cgstowernetworks.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo > <wenzhuo...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: 10GBASE-T SFP+ copper support > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ido Goshen [mailto:i...@cgstowernetworks.com] > > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2019 7:54 AM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo > > <wenzhuo...@intel.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: 10GBASE-T SFP+ copper support > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 3:13 PM > > > To: Ido Goshen <i...@cgstowernetworks.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo > > > <wenzhuo...@intel.com> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: 10GBASE-T SFP+ copper support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Ido Goshen <i...@cgstowernetworks.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > 10BASE-T SFP+ copper transceivers become cheaper and popular > > > > > > So far those were blocked by ixgbe as “unsupported”. > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > eth_ixgbe_dev_init(): Unsupported SFP+ Module > > > > > > eth_ixgbe_dev_init(): Hardware Initialization Failure: -19 > > > > > > EAL: Requested device 0000:0a:00.0 cannot be used > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch expands the usage of allow_unsupported_sfp to be > > > > > > more general and makes ixgbe more tolerant to unknown SFPs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it is a good idea to change the base code to > > > > > blindly allow unknown SFPs. > > > > > Again in eth_ixgbe_dev_init() we do set > > > > > hw->allow_unsupported_sfp = 1; > > > > > so the function below will return success anyway, > > > > > > > > what's the reason to not allow unknown SFPs? > > > > as is they are explicitly blocked and not working anyway, why not > > > > give > > > them a chance? > > > > > > From my perspective the question should be opposite: why to allow it? > > > ixgbe base code is developed and maintained by Intel ND team for > > > several platforms. > > > It should be some good reason to change it inside DPDK project only. > > > As I said, in eth_ixgbe_dev_init() we already set > > > hw->allow_unsupported_sfp = 1, so unknown spf should be allowed by > DPDK ixgbe PMD. > > > So what exact problem you are trying to solve here? > > > Konstantin > > > > The problem is that 10GBASE-T copper transceivers are not working just > > because they are unknown > > http://www.eoptolink.com/products/copper-10g-sfp > > > > The hw->allow_unsupported_sfp is used too late in > > https://git.dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-net-intel/tree/drivers/net/ixgbe/b > > ase/ixgbe_phy.c#n1530 And if we've already got out earlier in > > https://git.dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-net-intel/tree/drivers/net/ixgbe/b > > ase/ixgbe_phy.c#n1507 > > As I can read the code that check is for 1G SFPs. > So if you getting out here, then comp_codes_10g == 0 here, and it means > that given SFP is not recognized as 10G one. > I wonder why that happens? > > As I can see comp_codes_10g should be initialized at line 1314: > status = hw->phy.ops.read_i2c_eeprom(hw, > > IXGBE_SFF_10GBE_COMP_CODES, > &comp_codes_10g); >
The samples I have (from 2 vendors) read 0 from the eeprom IXGBE_SFF_10GBE_COMP_CODES offset SFF-8472 spec [https://members.snia.org/document/dl/25916] doesn't define a code value for 10GBASE-T TABLE 5-3 TRANSCEIVER COMPLIANCE CODES 10G Ethernet Compliance Codes 3 7 10G Base-ER 3 6 10G Base-LRM 3 5 10G Base-LR 3 4 10G Base-SR Infiniband Compliance Codes 3 3 1X SX 3 2 1X LX 3 1 1X Copper Active 3 0 1X Copper Active Seems they are right not to set any code from above, no? Do you know any 10GBASE-T SFPs that does work? Any idea what does it return for this field? > > The device cannot be used > > The patch tries to make the hw->allow_unsupported_sfp more general and > > in case it is set (always in dpdk) change any return status of > > IXGBE_ERR_SFP_NOT_SUPPORTED to IXGBE_SUCCESS with > ixgbe_phy_unknown > > > > Other suggestions how to make 10GBASE-T copper work? > > > > > > > > > > > > > More inputs > > > > 1. i40e already does support it (I didn't go deep into it but it > > > > just seems less strict on hw_init) 2. even with ixgbe it can work, > > > > because > > > unsupported is only checked by ixgbe_init_hw > > > > so if the SFP is inserted after the app has started it does work > > > > kind of inconsistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ido Goshen <i...@cgstowernetworks.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_phy.c | 22 > > > > > > +++++++++++----------- drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c | > > > > > > 3 +++ > > > > > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_phy.c > > > > > > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_phy.c > > > > > > index dd118f9..ff96afc 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_phy.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_phy.c > > > > > > @@ -1527,18 +1527,9 @@ s32 > > > > > > ixgbe_identify_sfp_module_generic(struct > > > > > ixgbe_hw *hw) > > > > > > if (hw->phy.type == ixgbe_phy_sfp_intel) { > > > > > > status = IXGBE_SUCCESS; > > > > > > } else { > > > > > > - if (hw->allow_unsupported_sfp == > true) { > > > > > > - EWARN(hw, > > > > > > - "WARNING: Intel (R) > > > > > Network Connections are quality tested using Intel (R) Ethernet > > > > > > Optics. " > > > > > > - "Using untested > modules is > > > > > not supported and may cause unstable operation or damage > > > > > > to the module or the adapter. " > > > > > > - "Intel Corporation is > not > > > > > responsible for any harm caused by using untested modules.\n"); > > > > > > - status = IXGBE_SUCCESS; > > > > > > - } else { > > > > > > - DEBUGOUT("SFP+ module > not > > > > > supported\n"); > > > > > > - hw->phy.type = > > > > > > + hw->phy.type = > > > > > > > ixgbe_phy_sfp_unsupported; > > > > > > - status = > > > > > IXGBE_ERR_SFP_NOT_SUPPORTED; > > > > > > - } > > > > > > + status = > IXGBE_ERR_SFP_NOT_SUPPORTED; > > > > > > } > > > > > > } else { > > > > > > status = IXGBE_SUCCESS; > > > > > > @@ -1546,6 +1537,15 @@ s32 > > > > > > ixgbe_identify_sfp_module_generic(struct > > > > > ixgbe_hw *hw) > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > out: > > > > > > + if (status == IXGBE_ERR_SFP_NOT_SUPPORTED && > > > > > > + hw->allow_unsupported_sfp) { > > > > > > + PMD_INIT_LOG(WARNING, > > > > > > + "WARNING: Intel (R) Network > Connections > > > > > are quality tested using Intel (R) Ethernet Optics. " > > > > > > + "Using untested modules is not > supported > > > > > and may cause unstable > > > > > > +operation or damage to the module or > > > > > > the adapter. " > > > > > > + "Intel Corporation is not responsible > for any > > > > > harm caused by using untested modules.\n"); > > > > > > + hw->phy.type = ixgbe_phy_unknown; > > > > > > + status = IXGBE_SUCCESS; > > > > > > + } > > > > > > return status; > > > > > > > > > > > > err_read_i2c_eeprom: > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > > > > > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > > > > > index a920a14..212d9a0 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c > > > > > > @@ -1539,6 +1539,9 @@ STATIC s32 > > > > > ixgbe_supported_sfp_modules_X550em(struct ixgbe_hw *hw, bool > > > > > *linear) > > > > > > *linear = false; > > > > > > break; > > > > > > case ixgbe_sfp_type_unknown: > > > > > > + if (hw->allow_unsupported_sfp) > > > > > > + return IXGBE_SUCCESS; > > > > > > + /* fall through */ > > > > > > case ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_cu_core0: > > > > > > case ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_cu_core1: > > > > > > default: > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 1.9.1
