[PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: support setting lanes

[Thomas Monjalon]

25/03/2024 07:24, huangdengdui:
> 
> On 2024/3/22 21:58, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 22/03/2024 08:09, Dengdui Huang:
> >> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G     RTE_BIT32(8)  /**< 10 Gbps */
> >> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_20G     RTE_BIT32(9)  /**< 20 Gbps */
> >> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G     RTE_BIT32(10) /**< 25 Gbps */
> >> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G     RTE_BIT32(11) /**< 40 Gbps */
> >> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G     RTE_BIT32(12) /**< 50 Gbps */
> >> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_56G     RTE_BIT32(13) /**< 56 Gbps */
> >> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G    RTE_BIT32(14) /**< 100 Gbps */
> >> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G    RTE_BIT32(15) /**< 200 Gbps */
> >> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G    RTE_BIT32(16) /**< 400 Gbps */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G            RTE_BIT32(8)  /**< 10 Gbps */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_20G            RTE_BIT32(9)  /**< 20 Gbps 2lanes */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G            RTE_BIT32(10) /**< 25 Gbps */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G            RTE_BIT32(11) /**< 40 Gbps 4lanes */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G            RTE_BIT32(12) /**< 50 Gbps */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_56G            RTE_BIT32(13) /**< 56 Gbps 4lanes */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G           RTE_BIT32(14) /**< 100 Gbps */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G           RTE_BIT32(15) /**< 200 Gbps 4lanes */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G           RTE_BIT32(16) /**< 400 Gbps 4lanes */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G_4LANES     RTE_BIT32(17)  /**< 10 Gbps 4lanes */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G_2LANES     RTE_BIT32(18) /**< 50 Gbps 2 lanes */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G_2LANES    RTE_BIT32(19) /**< 100 Gbps 2 lanes */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G_4LANES    RTE_BIT32(20) /**< 100 Gbps 4lanes */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G_2LANES    RTE_BIT32(21) /**< 200 Gbps 2lanes */
> >> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G_8LANES    RTE_BIT32(22) /**< 400 Gbps 8lanes */
> > 
> > I don't think it is a good idea to make this more complex.
> > It brings nothing as far as I can see, compared to having speed and lanes separated.
> > Can we have lanes information a separate value? no need for bitmask.
> > 
> Hi,Thomas, Ajit, roretzla, damodharam
> 
> I also considered the option at the beginning of the design.
> But this option is not used due to the following reasons:
> 1. For the user, ethtool couples speed and lanes.
> The result of querying the NIC capability is as follows:
> Supported link modes:
>         100000baseSR4/Full
>         100000baseSR2/Full
> The NIC capability is configured as follows:
> ethtool -s eth1 speed 100000 lanes 4 autoneg off
> ethtool -s eth1 speed 100000 lanes 2 autoneg off
> 
> Therefore, users are more accustomed to the coupling of speed and lanes.
> 
> 2. For the PHY, When the physical layer capability is configured through the MDIO,
> the speed and lanes are also coupled.
> For example:
> Table 45–7—PMA/PMD control 2 register bit definitions[1]
> PMA/PMD type selection
>                         1 0 0 1 0 1 0 = 100GBASE-SR2 PMA/PMD
>                         0 1 0 1 1 1 1 = 100GBASE-SR4 PMA/PMD
> 
> Therefore, coupling speeds and lanes is easier to understand.
> And it is easier for the driver to report the support lanes.
> 
> In addition, the code implementation is compatible with the old version.
> When the driver does not support the lanes setting, the code does not need to be modified.
> 
> So I think the speed and lanes coupling is better.

I don't think so.
You are mixing hardware implementation, user tool, and API.
Having a separate and simple API is cleaner and not more difficult to handle
in some get/set style functions.