On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Marc <marcde...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 19 December 2016 at 17:18, Alejandro Lucero < > alejandro.luc...@netronome.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >> wrote: >> >> > On 12/19/2016 3:02 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com >> > > <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com>> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Alejandro, >> > > >> > > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > >> > > On 12/19/2016 12:05 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: >> > > > NFP supports more speeds than just 40 and 100GB, which were >> > > > what was advertised before. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.luc...@netronome.com >> > <mailto:alejandro.luc...@netronome.com>> >> > > > --- >> > > > drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c | 4 +++- >> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c >> b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c >> > > > index 27afbfd..77015c4 100644 >> > > > --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c >> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c >> > > > @@ -1077,7 +1077,9 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct >> > nfp_net_hw *hw) >> > > > dev_info->reta_size = NFP_NET_CFG_RSS_ITBL_SZ; >> > > > dev_info->hash_key_size = NFP_NET_CFG_RSS_KEY_SZ; >> > > > >> > > > - dev_info->speed_capa = ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G | >> > ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G; >> > > > + dev_info->speed_capa = ETH_SPEED_NUM_1G | >> ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G >> > | >> > > > + ETH_SPEED_NUM_25G | >> ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G >> > | >> > > > + ETH_SPEED_NUM_50G | >> > ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G; >> > > >> > > Does all devices driver by this driver supports all these speeds? >> > > >> > > I am aware of at least one exception to this, from previous patch >> > [1], >> > > should we take that into account? >> > > >> > > >> > > So we have different NFP devices and different firmwares. >> > > NFP by design support all those speeds, but the PMD relies on the >> > > firmware for being able to know which is the current configured speed >> > > after link negotiation. PMD development was done with a specific >> > > firmware, and I was told to just report such speed by default. Last >> > > firmware versions give that speed info, but old firmware versions do >> not. >> > > >> > > So, all devices support such a speed range, indeed PMD works with any >> of >> > > them, but reported speed is always 40G with old firmware. This is a >> > > firmware limitation but we have to support old and new firmware. >> > >> > But this information to the application will be wrong for some (old) FW. >> > What do you think checking the FW version here and report capability >> > based on what FW supports? >> > >> > >> The driver advertises the right speed range supported. The problem is with >> the report about the current link speed configured. >> Maybe, is the right thing to do here to not report the current link speed >> because the driver really does not know about it? >> >> If you agree with this, I'm afraid the just accepted patch about the link >> report needs to be modified. >> > > Alejandro, > > If negociated link state has to be changed, then struct rte_eth_dev_data > dev_link field is where to do it. > > Yes. The driver is already doing that.
> As Ferruh was saying, dev_info->speed_capa contains the speed capabilties > of the particular NIC in use, not the driver (detecting firmware version > would be the best here). > > The NIC supports all the range. The problem is the driver does not really knows the speed with old firmware. > marc > > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Also other than that exception, can you please confirm all other >> > devices >> > > support all above speeds? >> > > >> > > [1] >> > > + if ((NFD_CFG_MAJOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) < 4) || >> > > + ((NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 4) && >> > > + (NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 0))) >> > > + link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G; >> > > >> > > >> > > > } >> > > > >> > > > static const uint32_t * >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >
