> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Daly <je...@silicom-usa.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 10:14 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Stephen Douthit <steph...@silicom-usa.com>; Yang, Qiming
> <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1...@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.zh...@intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 1:37 AM
> > To: Jeff Daly <je...@silicom-usa.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > <tho...@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Stephen Douthit <steph...@silicom-usa.com>; Yang, Qiming
> > <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1...@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 <je...@silicom-usa.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2022 2:03 AM
> > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > > <tho...@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Stephen Douthit <steph...@silicom-usa.com>; Yang, Qiming
> > > <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1...@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.zh...@intel.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 8:15 PM
> > > > To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Cc: Stephen Douthit <steph...@silicom-usa.com>; Jeff Daly
> > > > <jeffd@silicom- usa.com>; Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>;
> > > > Wu,
> > > > Wenjun1 <wenjun1...@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 <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 10:21 PM
> > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Cc: Stephen Douthit <steph...@silicom-usa.com>; Jeff Daly
> > > > > <jeffd@silicom- usa.com>; Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>;
> > > > > Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1
> > > > > <wenjun1...@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, je...@silicom-usa.com:
> > > > > > From: Stephen Douthit <steph...@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 <steph...@silicom-usa.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Daly <je...@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-je...@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.
> 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
>
> >
> > >
> > > > 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;
> > > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
