Re: [PATCH] net/ixgbe: support detection of hot swapped SFP/SFP+

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

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 <wei.dai@intel.com> 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 <srinidpdk@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Ananyev,
>>> Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
>>> 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.