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

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 7/18/2017 3:56 PM, Dai, Wei wrote:
> 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 ?

This is an old patch, with no update for a while.

If this is still needed please shout, otherwise patch will be removed.

Thanks,
ferruh


> 
> 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.
>