On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/2016 4:18 PM, Alejandro Lucero 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? > > Sorry, confused. Is it like following: > > " > For new FW, there is no problem, it supports the range between 1G - 50G, > and reports correct current speed. > > With old FW, device still can be set to speed range between 1G - 50G, > but it doesn't report current speed correct, and DPDK driver reports > back to application as device current speed is 40G, without really > knowing the current speed. > " > > Yes, that is. Should then I do anything else or the patch is right for you now? > Thanks, > ferruh > > > > > If you agree with this, I'm afraid the just accepted patch about the link > > report needs to be modified. > > > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 * > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >
