[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: support detection of hot swapped SFP/SFP+

[Dai, Wei]

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 <srinidpdk at gmail.com>; Dai, Wei <wei.dai at intel.com>
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; dev at dpdk.org; Lu,
> Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at 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.dai at 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-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
> Monjalon
> >>> Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 6:36 AM
> >>> To: Srinivasan J <srinidpdk at gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; Ananyev,
> >>> Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at 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.