> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Daly <je...@silicom-usa.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 11:23 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 7:22 PM > > 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: 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. > > > > Maybe I'm not understanding the terms being used then in the mailing list > status. > If you expect a new version (that doesn't exist yet) then wouldn't this be > more > aptly "Changes Requested" vs. "Superseded". Superseded implies there's a > new > version that exists and this current one no longer applies. If I just came > onto > the mailing list and read a patch that was marked "Superseded" and looked > for the new one and didn't find it, I'd be very confused. If I read a patch > that > was marked "Changes Requested", I'd know that this was the last patch sent > by the developer and that there would be a follow-up to this one sometime.
OK, I just thought we already get a agreement in the mailing list for introducing a devargs , so I move ahead But I understand your concern now. > > > > 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 > > > > > > why am I confused here? The patch you linked above is not related to this > patch. > The patch series linked above is an update to the hotplug patches that were > requested prior. (I screwed up the initial new series submission I admit, and > marked those as superseded). > > *This* patch however I've not submitted a new update for yet. > > And I don't see where you asked a question ? Sorry, I put the wrong link, it should be below patch http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20220412174220.31195-3-je...@silicom-usa.com/ When you submit the new version, you didn't supersede this, this give me confusion somehow, so I guess we are even now😊 btw, I saw you have replied the answer, so we are aligned on that thread also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
