On 6/5/19 2:00 AM, Stillwell Jr, Paul M wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:15 AM
To: Rong, Leyi <leyi.r...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Cao, Chinh T <chinh.t....@intel.com>; Ertman, David M
<david.m.ert...@intel.com>; Stillwell Jr, Paul M
<paul.m.stillwell...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 03/49] net/ice/base: add API to configure
MIB
On 6/4/19 7:42 AM, Leyi Rong wrote:
Add ice_cfg_lldp_mib_change and treat DCBx state NOT_STARTED as valid.
Signed-off-by: Chinh T Cao <chinh.t....@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Ertman <david.m.ert...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul M Stillwell Jr <paul.m.stillwell...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Leyi Rong <leyi.r...@intel.com>
---
drivers/net/ice/base/ice_dcb.c | 41
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
drivers/net/ice/base/ice_dcb.h | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_dcb.c
b/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_dcb.c index a7810578d..100c4bb0f 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_dcb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ice/base/ice_dcb.c
@@ -927,10 +927,11 @@ enum ice_status ice_get_dcb_cfg(struct
ice_port_info *pi)
/**
* ice_init_dcb
* @hw: pointer to the HW struct
+ * @enable_mib_change: enable MIB change event
*
* Update DCB configuration from the Firmware
*/
-enum ice_status ice_init_dcb(struct ice_hw *hw)
+enum ice_status ice_init_dcb(struct ice_hw *hw, bool
+enable_mib_change)
{
struct ice_port_info *pi = hw->port_info;
enum ice_status ret = ICE_SUCCESS;
@@ -944,7 +945,8 @@ enum ice_status ice_init_dcb(struct ice_hw *hw)
pi->dcbx_status = ice_get_dcbx_status(hw);
if (pi->dcbx_status == ICE_DCBX_STATUS_DONE ||
- pi->dcbx_status == ICE_DCBX_STATUS_IN_PROGRESS) {
+ pi->dcbx_status == ICE_DCBX_STATUS_IN_PROGRESS ||
+ pi->dcbx_status == ICE_DCBX_STATUS_NOT_STARTED) {
Should this really be in this patch?
It does not seem related to the API addition.
This seems ok since the commit message says that we changed the API and are
treating dcbx_status in a different manor. Is the objection that we have 2
things in one commit?
Well, it depends if DCBx NOT_STARTED becomes valid thanks to
ice_cfg_lldp_mib_change addition. It is not obvious by looking at the
commit message and the patch itself.
It this is not the case, then 2 commits are prefered, as one could
backport only the DCBx NOT_STARTED part.
/* Get current DCBX configuration */
ret = ice_get_dcb_cfg(pi);
pi->is_sw_lldp = (hw->adminq.sq_last_status ==
ICE_AQ_RC_EPERM);
@@ -952,13 +954,42 @@ enum ice_status ice_init_dcb(struct ice_hw *hw)
return ret;
} else if (pi->dcbx_status == ICE_DCBX_STATUS_DIS) {
return ICE_ERR_NOT_READY;
- } else if (pi->dcbx_status == ICE_DCBX_STATUS_MULTIPLE_PEERS) {
Ditto.
