From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: support detection of hot swapped SFP/SFP+ Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 14:00:29 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1492685271-7583-1-git-send-email-srinidpdk@gmail.com> <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093B59C4B1@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <3282640.JDCqqrB9e9@xps> <49759EB36A64CF4892C1AFEC9231E8D650A7D260@PGSMSX106.gar.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Srinivasan J , "Dai, Wei" Return-path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067494CC5 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:00:32 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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 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@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon >>> Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 6:36 AM >>> To: Srinivasan J >>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo ; Ananyev, >>> Konstantin >>> 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.