> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 10:47 PM
> To: Jeff Daly <je...@silicom-usa.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org; Stephen Douthit <steph...@silicom-usa.com>; Yang,
> Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 2/2] net/ixgbe: Fix SFP detection and linking on
> hotplug
>
> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or
> opening attachments.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Daly <je...@silicom-usa.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 01:42
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org; Stephen Douthit <steph...@silicom-usa.com>;
> Wang,
> > Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH v6 2/2] net/ixgbe: Fix SFP detection and linking on
> > hotplug
> >
> > Currently the ixgbe driver does not ID any SFP except for the first
> > one plugged in. This can lead to no-link, or incorrect speed conditions.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > * If link is initially established with a 1G SFP, and later a 1G/10G
> > multispeed part is later installed, then the MAC link setup functions
> > are never called to change from 1000BASE-X to 10GBASE-R mode, and the
> > link stays running at the slower rate.
> >
> > * If link is initially established with a 1G SFP, and later a 10G only
> > module is later installed, no link is established, since we are still
> > trasnsmitting in 1000BASE-X mode to a 10GBASE-R only partner.
> >
> > Refactor the SFP ID/setup, and link setup code, to more closely match
> > the flow of the mainline kernel driver which does not have these
> > issues. In that driver a service task runs periodically to handle
> > these operations based on bit flags that have been set (usually via
> > interrupt or userspace request), and then get cleared once the
> > requested subtask has been completed.
> >
> > Fixes: af75078fece ("first public release")
> > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> >
>
> So BIG change for new platform, DON'T CC to stable!
>
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Douthit <steph...@silicom-usa.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Daly <je...@silicom-usa.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c | 533
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++-------- drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.h |
> > 14 +-
> > 2 files changed, 410 insertions(+), 137 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > index f31bbb7895..9e720eee47 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > @@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static int ixgbe_dev_interrupt_get_status(struct
> > rte_eth_dev *dev); static int ixgbe_dev_interrupt_action(struct
> > rte_eth_dev *dev); static void ixgbe_dev_interrupt_handler(void
> > *param); static void ixgbe_dev_interrupt_delayed_handler(void
> > *param); -static void *ixgbe_dev_setup_link_thread_handler(void
> > *param); -static int ixgbe_dev_wait_setup_link_complete(struct
> rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > - uint32_t timeout_ms);
> >
>
>
> > + /* TODO - Even for platforms where ixgbe_check_sfp_cage() gives a
> clear
> > + * status result, if there's no interrupts, or no interrupt for the
> > SFP
> > + * cage present pin, even if other interrupts exist, then we still
> > need
> > + * to poll here to set the flag.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef RTE_EXEC_ENV_FREEBSD
> > + struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
> > + struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle = pci_dev->intr_handle;
> > + if (rte_intr_allow_others(intr_handle)) {
> > + /* check if lsc interrupt is enabled */
> > + if (dev->data->dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc)
> > + have_int = true;
>
>
> > + /* Check for loss of SFP */
> > + /* TODO - For platforms that don't have this flag, do we need to set
> > + * NEED_SFP_SETUP on LSC if we're a SFP platform?
> > + */
> > + if (hw->mac.type == ixgbe_mac_X550EM_a &&
> > + (eicr & IXGBE_EICR_GPI_SDP0_X550EM_a))
> > + intr->flags |= IXGBE_FLAG_NEED_SFP_SETUP;
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
>
>
> TODO ?
>
These were notes that some further refinements could be possible. I can remove
the comments if that makes it more acceptable. The first TODO was a note that
(for FreeBSD mostly) w/o interrupts the code below (not shown, which checks for
'have_int') will run vs. exiting early and relying on the NEED_SFP_SETUP flag
being set elsewhere. The 2nd TODO was a question from the original developer
to himself where (I believe) he was considering other implementations which may
not use MOD_ABS the same that other platforms do. I don't think this is an
issue (that I know of) so removing this commend and just moving on would be the
best thing, and if someone else knows of a situation where this consideration
might need to be made, then another patch can be submitted to address it.
> > --
> > 2.25.1
