From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/8] ethdev: 100G and link speed API
	refactoring
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:42:46 +0200
Message-ID: <3378985.okHjTtIZOy@xps13>
References: <1457992546-32230-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
 <10133718.H4CGZOGkuk@xps13>
 <CAExC=0T=E6==g3p1URbPA2ya5i5QOhXWXgRs8t7xs0U=EK_kbA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>, "Xu, Qian Q" <qian.q.xu@intel.com>,
 "Xing, Beilei" <beilei.xing@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org, "Ananyev,
 Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "Lu,
 Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "Richardson,
 Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Glynn,
 Michael J" <michael.j.glynn@intel.com>
To: Marc <marcdevel@gmail.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16BB347D1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:44:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 20so17823873wmh.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 06:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAExC=0T=E6==g3p1URbPA2ya5i5QOhXWXgRs8t7xs0U=EK_kbA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi Marc,

2016-03-27 21:39, Marc:
> On 27 March 2016 at 11:53, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> wrote:
> > 2016-03-26 11:24, Marc:
> > > On 26 March 2016 at 09:08, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 2016-03-25 22:30, Marc:
> > > > > From v9 to v10 patchset the values ETH_LINK_SPEED_AUTONEG and
> > > > ETH_LINK_SPEED_FIXED were flipped. Reverting this makes it work:
[...]
> > > > > I think having autoneg == 0 is better. Do you agree Thomas?
> > > >
> > > > No I do not agree, because this flag is now used also for
> > > > rte_eth_link.link_autoneg.
> > > > So it is more logic to set it to 1.
> > >
> > > Having to explicitly specify ETH_LINK_SPEED_AUTONEG in link_speeds during
> > > port configuration for achieving auto-negociation, which is what 98% of
> > > applications will use, seems anti-natural to me and breaks existing
> > > applications.
> >
> > Yes, you're right. We have to avoid apps modifications.
> > By keeping autoneg the default behaviour (value 0), we avoid issues.
> >
> > > The only benefit of your approach is not to have another macro #define
> > > ETH_LINK_AUTONEG 1, which is marginal IMHO.
> >
> > Yes, you're right.
> > I suggest adding 2 macros for rte_eth_link.link_autoneg:
> > #define ETH_LINK_FIXED      0 /**< No autonegotiation. */
> > #define ETH_LINK_AUTONEG    1 /**< Autonegotiated. */
> >
> > and keep these ones to use with rte_eth_conf.link_speeds and
> > rte_eth_dev_info.speed_capa:
> > #define ETH_LINK_SPEED_AUTONEG  (0 <<  0)  /**< Autonegotiate (all speeds) */
> > #define ETH_LINK_SPEED_FIXED    (1 <<  0)  /**< Disable autoneg (fixed speed) */
> >
> > Opinions?
> 
> Agree on all of them. I can add them in the (hopefully) final v14, once all
> or main drivers have been tested.

It would be better to make the v14 as soon as possible to let others test
the latest revision.
Thanks