On 5/6/2020 3:19 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 06/05/2020 16:01, Ferruh Yigit: >> On 5/6/2020 2:17 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 06/05/2020 14:59, Ferruh Yigit: >>>> On 5/6/2020 1:22 PM, Asaf Penso wrote: >>>>> There is no way to report back a link speed of 200Gbps. >>>>> >>>>> Adding 200G link speed. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Asaf Penso <as...@mellanox.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> v2 - reword commit log and remove 400G >>>>> >>>>> v3 - rebase and fix checkpatch warning >>>>> --- >>>>> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 12 +++++++----- >>>>> doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_05.rst | 2 ++ >>>>> doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst | 2 +- >>>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- >>>>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 2 ++ >>>>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 2 ++ >>>>> 6 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Hi Asaf, >>>> >>>> Patch looks good, but it updates ethdev & testpmd to have 200G defines and >>>> mlx5 >>>> to use it, so net/mlx5 prefix not really fits to the patch, can you >>>> separate >>>> mlx5 changes into another patch? >>> >>> I think I was the one advising to squash all. >>> The reason is that the changes in testpmd and ethdev are >>> simple and mechanical. >>> The real change is in mlx5 in my opinion, but I'm fine with splitting as >>> well. >>> >> >> Agree the real change is in the PMD and rest is mechanical, my concern was >> if we >> need to refer the ethdev or testpmd change later, we will need to use commit >> "net/mlx5: ..." which may be confusing. >> >> I think ethdev, testpmd & doc can be combined into one "ethdev: ..." and PMD >> implementation into other patch. >> >> Does it make sense? > > Yes I understand your concern about future reference. > I am OK with what you propose: > 1/ ethdev: add 200G link speed > 2/ net/mlx5: support 200G link speed >
OK I will split while merging.
