On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM lihuisong (C) <lihuis...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > 在 2024/3/25 17:30, Thomas Monjalon 写道: > > 25/03/2024 07:24, huangdengdui: > >> On 2024/3/22 21:58, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 22/03/2024 08:09, Dengdui Huang: > >>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G RTE_BIT32(8) /**< 10 Gbps */ > >>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_20G RTE_BIT32(9) /**< 20 Gbps */ > >>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G RTE_BIT32(10) /**< 25 Gbps */ > >>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G RTE_BIT32(11) /**< 40 Gbps */ > >>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G RTE_BIT32(12) /**< 50 Gbps */ > >>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_56G RTE_BIT32(13) /**< 56 Gbps */ > >>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G RTE_BIT32(14) /**< 100 Gbps */ > >>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G RTE_BIT32(15) /**< 200 Gbps */ > >>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G RTE_BIT32(16) /**< 400 Gbps */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G RTE_BIT32(8) /**< 10 Gbps */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_20G RTE_BIT32(9) /**< 20 Gbps > >>>> 2lanes */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G RTE_BIT32(10) /**< 25 Gbps */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G RTE_BIT32(11) /**< 40 Gbps > >>>> 4lanes */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G RTE_BIT32(12) /**< 50 Gbps */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_56G RTE_BIT32(13) /**< 56 Gbps > >>>> 4lanes */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G RTE_BIT32(14) /**< 100 Gbps */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G RTE_BIT32(15) /**< 200 Gbps > >>>> 4lanes */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G RTE_BIT32(16) /**< 400 Gbps > >>>> 4lanes */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G_4LANES RTE_BIT32(17) /**< 10 Gbps > >>>> 4lanes */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G_2LANES RTE_BIT32(18) /**< 50 Gbps 2 > >>>> lanes */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G_2LANES RTE_BIT32(19) /**< 100 Gbps 2 > >>>> lanes */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G_4LANES RTE_BIT32(20) /**< 100 Gbps > >>>> 4lanes */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G_2LANES RTE_BIT32(21) /**< 200 Gbps > >>>> 2lanes */ > >>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G_8LANES RTE_BIT32(22) /**< 400 Gbps > >>>> 8lanes */ > >>> I don't think it is a good idea to make this more complex. > >>> It brings nothing as far as I can see, compared to having speed and lanes > >>> separated. > >>> Can we have lanes information a separate value? no need for bitmask. > >>> > >> Hi,Thomas, Ajit, roretzla, damodharam > >> > >> I also considered the option at the beginning of the design. > >> But this option is not used due to the following reasons: > >> 1. For the user, ethtool couples speed and lanes. > >> The result of querying the NIC capability is as follows: > >> Supported link modes: > >> 100000baseSR4/Full > >> 100000baseSR2/Full So if DPDK provides a get lanes API, it should be able to tell the number of lanes supported. After that, the user should be able to pick one of the supported lane counts?
> >> The NIC capability is configured as follows: > >> ethtool -s eth1 speed 100000 lanes 4 autoneg off > >> ethtool -s eth1 speed 100000 lanes 2 autoneg off > >> > >> Therefore, users are more accustomed to the coupling of speed and lanes. > >> > >> 2. For the PHY, When the physical layer capability is configured through > >> the MDIO, > >> the speed and lanes are also coupled. > >> For example: > >> Table 45–7—PMA/PMD control 2 register bit definitions[1] > >> PMA/PMD type selection > >> 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 = 100GBASE-SR2 PMA/PMD > >> 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 = 100GBASE-SR4 PMA/PMD > >> > >> Therefore, coupling speeds and lanes is easier to understand. > >> And it is easier for the driver to report the support lanes. > >> > >> In addition, the code implementation is compatible with the old version. > >> When the driver does not support the lanes setting, the code does not need > >> to be modified. > >> > >> So I think the speed and lanes coupling is better. > > I don't think so. > > You are mixing hardware implementation, user tool, and API. > > Having a separate and simple API is cleaner and not more difficult to handle > > in some get/set style functions. > Having a separate and simple API is cleaner. It's good. > But supported lane capabilities have a lot to do with the specified > speed. This is determined by releated specification. > If we add a separate API for speed lanes, it probably is hard to check > the validity of the configuration for speed and lanes. > And the setting lane API sepparated from speed is not good for > uniforming all PMD's behavior in ethdev layer. > > The patch[1] is an example for this separate API. > I think it is not very good. It cannot tell user and PMD the follow points: > 1) user don't know what lanes should or can be set for a specified speed > on one NIC. > 2) how should PMD do for a supported lanes in their HW? > > Anyway, if we add setting speed lanes feature, we must report and set > speed and lanes capabilities for user well. > otherwise, user will be more confused. > > [1] https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=31606 > > BR, > /Huisong > > > > > > > > .
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
