[PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: support setting lanes

[lihuisong (C)]

在 2024/3/26 21:47, Ajit Khaparde 写道:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:15 AM lihuisong (C) <lihuisong at huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> 在 2024/3/26 18:30, Thomas Monjalon 写道:
>>> 26/03/2024 02:42, lihuisong (C):
>>>> 在 2024/3/25 17:30, Thomas Monjalon 写道:
>>>>> 25/03/2024 07:24, huangdengdui:
>>>>>> On 2024/3/22 21:58, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>>> 22/03/2024 08:09, Dengdui Huang:
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G     RTE_BIT32(8)  /**< 10 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_20G     RTE_BIT32(9)  /**< 20 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G     RTE_BIT32(10) /**< 25 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G     RTE_BIT32(11) /**< 40 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G     RTE_BIT32(12) /**< 50 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_56G     RTE_BIT32(13) /**< 56 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G    RTE_BIT32(14) /**< 100 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G    RTE_BIT32(15) /**< 200 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> -#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G    RTE_BIT32(16) /**< 400 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G            RTE_BIT32(8)  /**< 10 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_20G            RTE_BIT32(9)  /**< 20 Gbps 2lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_25G            RTE_BIT32(10) /**< 25 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_40G            RTE_BIT32(11) /**< 40 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G            RTE_BIT32(12) /**< 50 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_56G            RTE_BIT32(13) /**< 56 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G           RTE_BIT32(14) /**< 100 Gbps */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G           RTE_BIT32(15) /**< 200 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G           RTE_BIT32(16) /**< 400 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_10G_4LANES     RTE_BIT32(17)  /**< 10 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_50G_2LANES     RTE_BIT32(18) /**< 50 Gbps 2 lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G_2LANES    RTE_BIT32(19) /**< 100 Gbps 2 lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_100G_4LANES    RTE_BIT32(20) /**< 100 Gbps 4lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_200G_2LANES    RTE_BIT32(21) /**< 200 Gbps 2lanes */
>>>>>>>> +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_SPEED_400G_8LANES    RTE_BIT32(22) /**< 400 Gbps 8lanes */
>>>>>>> I don't think it is a good idea to make this more complex.
>>>>>>> It brings nothing as far as I can see, compared to having speed and lanes separated.
>>>>>>> Can we have lanes information a separate value? no need for bitmask.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,Thomas, Ajit, roretzla, damodharam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also considered the option at the beginning of the design.
>>>>>> But this option is not used due to the following reasons:
>>>>>> 1. For the user, ethtool couples speed and lanes.
>>>>>> The result of querying the NIC capability is as follows:
>>>>>> Supported link modes:
>>>>>>            100000baseSR4/Full
>>>>>>            100000baseSR2/Full
>>>>>> The NIC capability is configured as follows:
>>>>>> ethtool -s eth1 speed 100000 lanes 4 autoneg off
>>>>>> ethtool -s eth1 speed 100000 lanes 2 autoneg off
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, users are more accustomed to the coupling of speed and lanes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. For the PHY, When the physical layer capability is configured through the MDIO,
>>>>>> the speed and lanes are also coupled.
>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>> Table 45–7—PMA/PMD control 2 register bit definitions[1]
>>>>>> PMA/PMD type selection
>>>>>>                            1 0 0 1 0 1 0 = 100GBASE-SR2 PMA/PMD
>>>>>>                            0 1 0 1 1 1 1 = 100GBASE-SR4 PMA/PMD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, coupling speeds and lanes is easier to understand.
>>>>>> And it is easier for the driver to report the support lanes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, the code implementation is compatible with the old version.
>>>>>> When the driver does not support the lanes setting, the code does not need to be modified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I think the speed and lanes coupling is better.
>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>> You are mixing hardware implementation, user tool, and API.
>>>>> Having a separate and simple API is cleaner and not more difficult to handle
>>>>> in some get/set style functions.
>>>> Having a separate and simple API is cleaner. It's good.
>>>> But supported lane capabilities have a lot to do with the specified
>>>> speed. This is determined by releated specification.
>>>> If we add a separate API for speed lanes, it probably is hard to check
>>>> the validity of the configuration for speed and lanes.
>>>> And the setting lane API sepparated from speed is not good for
>>>> uniforming all PMD's behavior in ethdev layer.
>>> Please let's be more specific.
>>> There are 3 needs:
>>>        - set PHY lane config
>>>        - get PHY lane config
>>>        - get PHY lane capabilities
>> IMO, this lane capabilities should be reported based on supported speed
>> capabilities.
>>> There is no problem providing a function to get the number of PHY lanes.
>>> It is possible to set PHY lanes number after defining a fixed speed.
>> yes it's ok.
>>>> The patch[1] is an example for this separate API.
>>>> I think it is not very good. It cannot tell user and PMD the follow points:
>>>> 1) user don't know what lanes should or can be set for a specified speed
>>>> on one NIC.
>>> This is about capabilities.
>>> Can we say a HW will support a maximum number of PHY lanes in general?
>>> We may need to associate the maximum speed per lane?
>>> Do we really need to associate PHY lane and PHY speed numbers for capabilities?
>> Personally, it should contain the below releationship at least.
>> speed 10G  --> 1lane | 4lane
>> speed 100G  --> 2lane | 4lane
>>> Example: if a HW supports 100G-4-lanes and 200G-2-lanes,
>>> may we assume it is also supporting 200G-4-lanes?
>> I think we cannot assume that NIC also support 200G-4-lanes.
>> Beause it has a lot to do with HW design.
>>>> 2) how should PMD do for a supported lanes in their HW?
>>> I don't understand this question. Please rephrase.
>> I mean that PMD don't know set how many lanes when the lanes from user
>> is not supported on a fixed speed by PMD.
>> So ethdev layer should limit the avaiable lane number based on a fixed
>> speed.
> ethdev layer has generally been opaque. We should keep it that way.
> The PMD should know what the HW supports.
If one operation is common for all PMD, which is recommanded to do it in 
ethdev layer.
> So it should show the capabilities correctly. Right?
Yes, the lane capabilities of differrent speed are necessary for user.
> And if the user provides incorrect settings, it should reject it.
Rejecting it in this case is no any reason.
>
>>>> Anyway, if we add setting speed lanes feature, we must report and set
>>>> speed and lanes capabilities for user well.
>>>> otherwise, user will be more confused.
>>> Well is not necessarily exposing all raw combinations as ethtool does.
>> Agreed.
>>>> [1] https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=31606
>>>
>>> .