Re: [PATCH iwl-next] ice: update ice_link_mode_str_high() with 200G

[Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>]

This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.

For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
---
ice: update ice_link_mode_str_high() with 200G

This patch adds string entries to ice_link_mode_str_high[] for 200G and
400GBASE-FR8 PHY types to fix ice_dump_phy_type() debug output for E825C
hardware.

> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c
> index ce11fea122d0..7cdd6a043d86 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c
> @@ -84,6 +84,17 @@ static const char * const ice_link_mode_str_high[] = {
>  	[2] = "100G_CAUI2",
>  	[3] = "100G_AUI2_AOC_ACC",
>  	[4] = "100G_AUI2",
> +	[5] = "200G_CR4_PAM4",
> +	[6] = "200G_SR4",
> +	[7] = "200G_FR4",
> +	[8] = "200G_LR4",
> +	[9] = "200G_DR4",
> +	[10] = "200G_KR4_PAM4",
> +	[11] = "200G_AUI4_AOC_ACC",
> +	[12] = "200G_AUI4",
> +	[13] = "200G_AUI8_AOC_ACC",
> +	[14] = "200G_AUI8",
> +	[15] = "400GBASE_FR8",
>  };
>
>  /**

Are entries [13], [14], and [15] missing their corresponding hardware
definitions?

The patch adds strings for indices 13-15, but ICE_PHY_TYPE_HIGH_MAX_INDEX
remains defined as 12 in ice_adminq_cmd.h (line 1047), and no
ICE_PHY_TYPE_HIGH_* bit definitions exist for these three types.

Other driver code uses MAX_INDEX as a bound:

drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c:ice_get_phy_type_high() {
    for (index = 0; index <= ICE_PHY_TYPE_HIGH_MAX_INDEX; index++)
        ...
}

This creates an inconsistency where ice_dump_phy_type() can print these
strings via debug output, but code checking PHY types based on MAX_INDEX
will not recognize indices 13-15.

If E825C hardware truly supports these PHY types, should this patch also
include the hardware definitions (ICE_PHY_TYPE_HIGH_200G_AUI8_AOC_ACC =
BIT_ULL(13), etc.) and update MAX_INDEX to 15?