From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA5AC433DB for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 22:39:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AEAE650A8 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 22:39:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230045AbhCEWio (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Mar 2021 17:38:44 -0500 Received: from mga17.intel.com ([192.55.52.151]:64863 "EHLO mga17.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229611AbhCEWi0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Mar 2021 17:38:26 -0500 IronPort-SDR: gJUMpZFk7P4tkPlYF4m5pAfWy56d/TIFj/ZI3Ej2yS8ybqr6vq98y6EXTCuxsmds3NFlIqr0ec 8omB1pKBELfA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9914"; a="167640403" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,226,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="167640403" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2021 14:38:26 -0800 IronPort-SDR: +gaITYTI6NYm23BqUUvKOghOCpx+Z4Lkhy/OW54TUB/LxCe3h9FAFg4RctYmKgFk9dMQfq/cvl R6Rx6cu+ry9w== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,226,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="508215288" Received: from bfrahm-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO vcostago-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com) ([10.212.101.47]) by fmsmga001-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2021 14:38:25 -0800 From: Vinicius Costa Gomes To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, kuba@kernel.org, vladimir.oltean@nxp.com, Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com, po.liu@nxp.com, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com, mkubecek@suse.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/8] ethtool: Add support for configuring frame preemption In-Reply-To: <20210303005112.im2zur47553uv2ld@skbuf> References: <20210122224453.4161729-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20210122224453.4161729-2-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20210302142350.4tu3n4gay53cjnig@skbuf> <87o8g1nk6g.fsf@vcostago-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com> <20210303005112.im2zur47553uv2ld@skbuf> Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 14:38:24 -0800 Message-ID: <874khpns4f.fsf@vcostago-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Vladimir Oltean writes: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 04:40:55PM -0800, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> Vladimir Oltean writes: >> >> > Hi Vinicius, >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:44:46PM -0800, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: >> >> Frame preemption (described in IEEE 802.3br-2016) defines the concept >> >> of preemptible and express queues. It allows traffic from express >> >> queues to "interrupt" traffic from preemptible queues, which are >> >> "resumed" after the express traffic has finished transmitting. >> >> >> >> Frame preemption can only be used when both the local device and the >> >> link partner support it. >> >> >> >> Only parameters for enabling/disabling frame preemption and >> >> configuring the minimum fragment size are included here. Expressing >> >> which queues are marked as preemptible is left to mqprio/taprio, as >> >> having that information there should be easier on the user. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes >> >> --- >> > >> > I just noticed that the aMACMergeStatusVerify variable is not exposed in >> > the PREEMPT_GET command, which would allow the user to inspect the state >> > of the MAC merge sublayer verification state machine. Also, a way in the >> > PREEMPT_SET command to set the disableVerify variable would be nice. >> > >> >> The hardware I have won't have support for this. > > What exactly is not supported, FP verification or the disabling of it? > Does your hardware at least respond to verification frames? > Not supported in the sense that the NIC doesn't expose those variables into registers. About the behavior, I am asking our hardware folks. Cheers, -- Vinicius