From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Forster Subject: Re: Question about unsupported transceivers Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:29:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <561FD17E.6070908@gmail.com> <561FE9A8.1010409@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: Alexander Duyck Return-path: Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0100.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F095A53 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:29:03 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <561FE9A8.1010409@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <7AE3458EE494DE48B6A41EE64DA61FE0@namprd06.prod.outlook.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 10/15/15, 2:00 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: > >Your changes are a bit over-kill and actually take things in the wrong >direction. By commenting out the whole allow_unsupported_sfp block you >are disabling it by default. Remember the module parameter allows it, >by removing it there is no way to enable the feature. > >Like I mentioned in my previous email just take a look at replacing the >"OPTION_DISABLED" value with "OPTION_ENABLED" in the .def part of the >structure. After that you won't need to pass the module parameter as it >will always be enabled by default. > >- Alex It's hard to see in the patch, but I basically replaced that whole option check block with: { /* * allow_unsupported_sfp - Enable/Disable support for unsupported * and untested SFP+ modules. */ adapter->hw.allow_unsupported_sfp =3D true; } Alex Forster