>-----Original Message----- >From: Zhang, Qi Z <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2022 7:17 PM >To: IOTG DPDK Ref App <[email protected]>; [email protected] >Subject: RE: [PATCH] IGC: Remove I225_I_PHY_ID checking
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 4:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [PATCH] IGC: Remove I225_I_PHY_ID checking > > From: NSWE SWS DPDK Dev <[email protected]> > > i225 devices have only one PHY vendor. There is unnecessary to check > _I_PHY_ID during the link establishment and auto-negotiation process, > the checking also caused devices like i225-IT failed. This patch is to > remove the mentioned unnecessary checking. > > Cc: [email protected] > Signed-off-by: NSWE SWS DPDK Dev <[email protected]> >Is this the expected author name? Yes, this is expected author name, the PDL email contain all developers working on the patch for better support and response. > --- > drivers/net/igc/base/igc_api.c | 1 + > drivers/net/igc/base/igc_hw.h | 1 + > drivers/net/igc/base/igc_i225.c | 15 ++------------- > drivers/net/igc/base/igc_phy.c | 6 ++---- > drivers/net/igc/igc_ethdev.c | 1 + > 5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_api.c > b/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_api.c index 9b791dc082..c9fc9ed4b0 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_api.c > +++ b/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_api.c > @@ -886,6 +886,7 @@ s32 igc_set_mac_type(struct igc_hw *hw) > case IGC_DEV_ID_I225_V: > case IGC_DEV_ID_I225_K: > case IGC_DEV_ID_I225_I: > + case IGC_DEV_ID_I225_IT: > case IGC_DEV_ID_I220_V: > case IGC_DEV_ID_I225_BLANK_NVM: > case IGC_DEV_ID_I226_K: > diff --git a/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_hw.h > b/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_hw.h index 707a1883b4..e919a11c02 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_hw.h > +++ b/drivers/net/igc/base/igc_hw.h > @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ struct igc_hw; > #define IGC_DEV_ID_I225_V 0x15F3 > #define IGC_DEV_ID_I225_K 0x3100 > #define IGC_DEV_ID_I225_I 0x15F8 > +#define IGC_DEV_ID_I225_IT 0x0D9F >The patch's commit log claims to remove something, but in code it also add >some new device ID, could you clarify why we need this or it should be in a >separate patch? The checking issue was firstly discovered because of i225-IT not working on our lab and escalated to DPDK team for support, as informed by DPDK team after the patch sent, that the i225-IT device ID has been patched in DPDK next release, we'll send out v2 patch soon with only removing redundance checking without i225-IT device ID.
