[PATCH v3 1/1] ethdev: add support to provide link type

[Thomas Monjalon]

13/08/2025 10:43, skori at marvell.com:
> + * Ethernet port type

You mean "link port type"

> + */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_NONE     0  /**< Not defined */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_TP       1  /**< Twisted Pair */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_AUI      2  /**< Attachment Unit Interface */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_MII      3  /**< Media Independent Interface */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_FIBRE    4  /**< Fibre */

In general we use the US word "fiber",
but we are not very consistent, so it is not a strong opinion.

> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_BNC      5  /**< BNC */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_DA       6  /**< Direct Attach copper */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SGMII    7  /**< SGMII */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSGMII   8  /**< QSGMII */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_XFI      9  /**< XFI */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SFI     10  /**< SFI */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_XLAUI   11  /**< XLAUI */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_GAUI    12  /**< GAUI */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_XAUI    13  /**< XAUI */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_GBASE   14  /**< GBASE */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_CAUI    15  /**< CAUI */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_LAUI    16  /**< LAUI */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SFP     17  /**< SFP */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SFP_DD  18  /**< SFP_DD */

You should use more full words in comments, at least for DD.

> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SFP_PLUS 19  /**< SFP_PLUS */

Please add more spaces to allow a correct alignment.

> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SFP28   20  /**< SFP28 */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSFP    21  /**< QSFP */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSFP_PLUS 22  /**< QSFP_PLUS */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSFP28  23  /**< QSFP28 */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSFP56  24  /**< QSFP56 */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSFP_DD 25  /**< QSFP_DD */
> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_OTHER  0x1F /**< Other type */

Why the last one is in hexadecimal? and why 1F?

Is there a logic in the order and numbering for this list?

Why not using an enum?

Thanks