Hi, Srini There is a bit confusion. Your patch shows that your code is added into the function eth_ixgbevf_pci_remove( ). But it is not. It is added into the fucntion ixgbe_dev_start( ), right ? So would you please rebase it to R 17.05 ?
Which type of ixgbe device id did you tested ? There are many MAC types with different device id. The function ixgbe_pf_reset_hw(hw) is called before your adding code. ixgbe_pf_reset_hw() calls hw->mac.ops.reset_hw( ) which may points to following different function for different MAC type. Ixgbe_reset_hw_82598( ) calls hw->phy.ops.init(hw) if hw->phy.reset_disable == false . Ixgbe_reset_hw_82599( ) calls hw->phy.ops.init(hw) unconditionally. ixgbe_reset_hw_X540( ) doesn't' call pw->phy.ops.init(hw). For X540, hw->phy.ops.init points to ixgbe_init_phy_ops_generic() which only initialize some function pointers. Ixgbe_rest_hw_x550em() calls hw->phy.ops.init(hw) unconditionally. And for VF, ixgbe_reset_hw_vf( ) and ixgbevf_hv_reset_hw_vf( ) don't call hw->phy.ops.init(hw) anywhere. Thanks & Best Regards -Wei > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 6:36 AM > To: Srinivasan J <srinid...@gmail.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Ananyev, > Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: support detection of hot swapped > SFP/SFP+ > > 06/05/2017 15:51, Srinivasan J: > > Hi, > > Do we need an explicit "Acked-by" keyword for this > > patch to be accepted and applied? > > Yes, given it is not a trivial patch, an ack from the maintainer is required. > Anyway, it has been submitted too late for 17.05 testing.
