HI, Srini Sorry for late response.
As I have pointed out that Ixgbe_reset_hw_82599( ) calls hw->phy.ops.init(hw) unconditionally, I think it is no need to call hw->phy.ops.init(hw) after ixgbe_pf_reset_hw(hw) at least for 82599. I also think that only moving "hw->phy.type = ixgbe_phy_unknown" just before ixgbe_pf_reset_hw(hw) is OK. What's more, how about X540 and X550 ? I have just got a X540 and a X550 NIC with copper interface, so I only can plug in/out the RJ45 line to help test it. Is your patch designed for plugging out original SFP and then plugging in another different type of SFP ? By the way, I'd like you provide more details on how to test your patch? With testpmd ? Or other app ? Thanks -Wei > -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:00 PM > To: Srinivasan J <srinid...@gmail.com>; Dai, Wei <wei....@intel.com> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; 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+ > > On 5/19/2017 11:04 AM, Srinivasan J wrote: > > Hi Wei, > > Yes the changes are in ixgbe_dev_start( ), the patch shows > > the function as eth_ixgbevf_pci_remove() probably due to the way diff > > recognizes the change. I have tested the change using Intel > > Corporation 82599ES. > > Hi Srinivasan, Wei, > > What is the latest status of the patch? Are all issues pointed by Wie > addressed in the patch, or are we waiting for a new version? > > Thanks, > ferruh > > > > > Thanks, > > Srini > > > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Dai, Wei <wei....@intel.com> wrote: > >> 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.
