[PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the X550 devices

[Zhang, Qi Z]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Daly <jeffd at silicom-usa.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 4:44 AM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Stephen Douthit <stephend at silicom-usa.com>; Yang, Qiming
> <qiming.yang at intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1.wu at intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: Treat 1G Cu SFPs as 1G SX on the X550 devices
> 
> 1G Cu SFPs are not officially supported on the X552/X553 family of devices
> but create an option cu_sfp_as_sx to treat them as 1G SX modules since they
> usually work.  Print a warning though since support isn't validated, similar to
> what already happens for other unofficially supported SFPs enabled via the
> allow_unsupported_sfps parameter inherited from the mainline Linux driver.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Daly <jeffd at silicom-usa.com>
> Suggested-by: Stephen Douthit <stephend at silicom-usa.com>
> ---
> v2:
> * Introduced cu_sfp_as_sx option, default off.
> ---
>  doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst           | 16 ++++++++++++++
>  drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_type.h |  1 +
> drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_x550.c | 12 ++++++++++-
>  drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c    | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.h    |  3 +++
>  5 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst b/doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst index
> 82fa453fa28e..5db63083eef8 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/ixgbe.rst
> @@ -101,6 +101,22 @@ To guarantee the constraint, capabilities in
> dev_conf.rxmode.offloads will be ch
> 
>  fdir_conf->mode will also be checked.
> 
> +Runtime Options
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +
> +The following ``devargs`` options can be enabled at runtime. They must
> +be passed as part of EAL arguments. For example,
> +
> +.. code-block:: console
> +
> +   dpdk-testpmd -a af:10.0,cu_sfp_as_sx=1 -- -i
> +
> +- ``cu_sfp_as_sx`` (default **0**)

Can we make this devargs more generic e.g.: "allow_unsupported_phy"
So we don't need to add a devarg for similar requirement case by case in future, of cause we still need to well explain all the unsupported cases in the document.