[dpdk-dev] nfp: report link speed using hardware info
Checks
Commit Message
Previous reported speed was hardcoded.
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
---
drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net_ctrl.h | 13 +++++++++++++
2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Comments
Hi Thomas,
I got this email when sending a patch some minutes ago.
The point is I trusted script/checkpatches.sh which did not report those
warnings.
Am I doing anything wrong when using checkpatches.sh?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <checkpatch@dpdk.org>
Date: Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM
Subject: |WARNING| [PATCH] nfp: report link speed using hardware info
To: test-report@dpdk.org
Cc: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
Test-Label: checkpatch
Test-Status: WARNING
http://dpdk.org/patch/17091
_coding style issues_
CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro argument reuse 'arr' - possible side-effects?
#53: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:806:
+#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]))
CHECK:BRACES: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
#91: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:856:
+ else {
+
total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 2 checks, 68 lines checked
On 11/18/2016 3:10 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I got this email when sending a patch some minutes ago.
>
> The point is I trusted script/checkpatches.sh which did not report those
> warnings.
> Am I doing anything wrong when using checkpatches.sh?
I am also getting same warnings as below, this can be related to the
checkpatch.pl version.
I have: Version: 0.32
(./scripts/checkpatch.pl --version)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <checkpatch@dpdk.org>
> Date: Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM
> Subject: |WARNING| [PATCH] nfp: report link speed using hardware info
> To: test-report@dpdk.org
> Cc: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
>
>
> Test-Label: checkpatch
> Test-Status: WARNING
> http://dpdk.org/patch/17091
>
> _coding style issues_
>
>
> CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro argument reuse 'arr' - possible side-effects?
> #53: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:806:
> +#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]))
>
> CHECK:BRACES: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
> #91: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:856:
> + else {
> +
>
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 2 checks, 68 lines checked
>
On 11/18/2016 3:10 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I got this email when sending a patch some minutes ago.
>
> The point is I trusted script/checkpatches.sh which did not report those
> warnings.
> Am I doing anything wrong when using checkpatches.sh?
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <checkpatch@dpdk.org>
> Date: Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM
> Subject: |WARNING| [PATCH] nfp: report link speed using hardware info
> To: test-report@dpdk.org
> Cc: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
>
>
> Test-Label: checkpatch
> Test-Status: WARNING
> http://dpdk.org/patch/17091
>
> _coding style issues_
>
>
> CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro argument reuse 'arr' - possible side-effects?
> #53: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:806:
> +#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]))
btw, you can benefit from RTE_DIM:
lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h:352:
#define RTE_DIM(a) (sizeof (a) / sizeof ((a)[0]))
>
> CHECK:BRACES: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
> #91: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:856:
> + else {
> +
>
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 2 checks, 68 lines checked
>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
wrote:
> On 11/18/2016 3:10 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > I got this email when sending a patch some minutes ago.
> >
> > The point is I trusted script/checkpatches.sh which did not report those
> > warnings.
> > Am I doing anything wrong when using checkpatches.sh?
>
> I am also getting same warnings as below, this can be related to the
> checkpatch.pl version.
>
> I have: Version: 0.32
> (./scripts/checkpatch.pl --version)
>
>
Uhmm, I got same one.
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: <checkpatch@dpdk.org>
> > Date: Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM
> > Subject: |WARNING| [PATCH] nfp: report link speed using hardware info
> > To: test-report@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
> >
> >
> > Test-Label: checkpatch
> > Test-Status: WARNING
> > http://dpdk.org/patch/17091
> >
> > _coding style issues_
> >
> >
> > CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro argument reuse 'arr' - possible
> side-effects?
> > #53: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:806:
> > +#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]))
> >
> > CHECK:BRACES: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
> > #91: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:856:
> > + else {
> > +
> >
> > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 2 checks, 68 lines checked
> >
>
>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
wrote:
> On 11/18/2016 3:10 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > I got this email when sending a patch some minutes ago.
> >
> > The point is I trusted script/checkpatches.sh which did not report those
> > warnings.
> > Am I doing anything wrong when using checkpatches.sh?
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: <checkpatch@dpdk.org>
> > Date: Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM
> > Subject: |WARNING| [PATCH] nfp: report link speed using hardware info
> > To: test-report@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
> >
> >
> > Test-Label: checkpatch
> > Test-Status: WARNING
> > http://dpdk.org/patch/17091
> >
> > _coding style issues_
> >
> >
> > CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro argument reuse 'arr' - possible
> side-effects?
> > #53: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:806:
> > +#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]))
>
> btw, you can benefit from RTE_DIM:
>
> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h:352:
> #define RTE_DIM(a) (sizeof (a) / sizeof ((a)[0]))
>
>
Thanks!
I will use it in the next patch version.
> >
> > CHECK:BRACES: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
> > #91: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:856:
> > + else {
> > +
> >
> > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 2 checks, 68 lines checked
> >
>
>
2016-11-18 15:24, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 11/18/2016 3:10 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > I got this email when sending a patch some minutes ago.
> >
> > The point is I trusted script/checkpatches.sh which did not report those
> > warnings.
> > Am I doing anything wrong when using checkpatches.sh?
>
> I am also getting same warnings as below, this can be related to the
> checkpatch.pl version.
>
> I have: Version: 0.32
> (./scripts/checkpatch.pl --version)
Yes checkpatch@dpdk.org uses the version 0.32.
I could try to add it in the mail report.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Alejandro Lucero <
alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2016 3:10 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
>> > Hi Thomas,
>> >
>> > I got this email when sending a patch some minutes ago.
>> >
>> > The point is I trusted script/checkpatches.sh which did not report those
>> > warnings.
>> > Am I doing anything wrong when using checkpatches.sh?
>>
>> I am also getting same warnings as below, this can be related to the
>> checkpatch.pl version.
>>
>> I have: Version: 0.32
>> (./scripts/checkpatch.pl --version)
>>
>>
> Uhmm, I got same one.
>
>
Ok. It seems I suffered a temporal blindness. I though the automatic report
was about warnings but it is about checks. But I got just one of the checks
messages. This is the output with -v and adding OPTIONS used:
### [PATCH] nfp: report link speed using hardware info
OPTIONS: --no-tree --max-line-length=80 --show-types
--ignore=LINUX_VERSION_CODE,FILE_PATH_CHANGES,VOLATILE,PREFER_PACKED,PREFER_ALIGNED,PREFER_PRINTF,PREFER_KERNEL_TYPES,BIT_MACRO,CONST_STRUCT,SPLIT_STRING,LINE_SPACING,PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT,NETWORKING_BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE,NEW_TYPEDEFS,COMPARISON_TO_NULL
CHECK:BRACES: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
#60: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:856:
+ else {
+
total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 1 checks, 68 lines checked
0/1 valid patch
> >
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: <checkpatch@dpdk.org>
>> > Date: Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM
>> > Subject: |WARNING| [PATCH] nfp: report link speed using hardware info
>> > To: test-report@dpdk.org
>> > Cc: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > Test-Label: checkpatch
>> > Test-Status: WARNING
>> > http://dpdk.org/patch/17091
>> >
>> > _coding style issues_
>> >
>> >
>> > CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro argument reuse 'arr' - possible
>> side-effects?
>> > #53: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:806:
>> > +#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]))
>> >
>> > CHECK:BRACES: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
>> > #91: FILE: drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:856:
>> > + else {
>> > +
>> >
>> > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 2 checks, 68 lines checked
>> >
>>
>>
>
2016-11-18 15:31, Alejandro Lucero:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 11/18/2016 3:10 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > > I got this email when sending a patch some minutes ago.
> > >
> > > The point is I trusted script/checkpatches.sh which did not report those
> > > warnings.
> > > Am I doing anything wrong when using checkpatches.sh?
> >
> > I am also getting same warnings as below, this can be related to the
> > checkpatch.pl version.
> >
> > I have: Version: 0.32
> > (./scripts/checkpatch.pl --version)
> >
> Uhmm, I got same one.
The last update of this version number is from 2011...
I guess we have to live without checkpatch versioning.
@@ -803,6 +803,7 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct nfp_net_hw *hw)
hw->ctrl = new_ctrl;
}
+#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]))
/*
* return 0 means link status changed, -1 means not changed
*
@@ -816,6 +817,18 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct nfp_net_hw *hw)
struct rte_eth_link link, old;
uint32_t nn_link_status;
+ static const uint32_t ls_to_ethtool[] = {
+ [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNSUPPORTED] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE,
+ [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE,
+ [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_1G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_1G,
+ [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_10G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_10G,
+ [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_25G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_25G,
+ [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_40G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G,
+ [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_50G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_50G,
+ [NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_100G] = ETH_SPEED_NUM_100G,
+ };
+
+
PMD_DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "Link update\n");
hw = NFP_NET_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data->dev_private);
@@ -831,8 +844,22 @@ static void nfp_net_read_mac(struct nfp_net_hw *hw)
link.link_status = ETH_LINK_UP;
link.link_duplex = ETH_LINK_FULL_DUPLEX;
- /* Other cards can limit the tx and rx rate per VF */
- link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G;
+
+ nn_link_status = (nn_link_status >> NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_SHIFT) &
+ NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_MASK;
+
+ if ((NFD_CFG_MAJOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) < 4) ||
+ ((NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 4) &&
+ (NFD_CFG_MINOR_VERSION_of(hw->ver) == 0)))
+ link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_40G;
+ else {
+
+ if (nn_link_status == NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN ||
+ nn_link_status >= ARRAY_SIZE(ls_to_ethtool))
+ link.link_speed = ETH_SPEED_NUM_NONE;
+ else
+ link.link_speed = ls_to_ethtool[nn_link_status];
+ }
if (old.link_status != link.link_status) {
nfp_net_dev_atomic_write_link_status(dev, &link);
@@ -157,6 +157,19 @@
#define NFP_NET_CFG_VERSION_MINOR(x) (((x) & 0xff) << 0)
#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS 0x0034
#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK (0x1 << 0) /* Link up or down */
+/* Link rate */
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_SHIFT 1
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_MASK 0xF
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE \
+ (NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_MASK << NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_SHIFT)
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNSUPPORTED 0
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_UNKNOWN 1
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_1G 2
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_10G 3
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_25G 4
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_40G 5
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_50G 6
+#define NFP_NET_CFG_STS_LINK_RATE_100G 7
#define NFP_NET_CFG_CAP 0x0038
#define NFP_NET_CFG_MAX_TXRINGS 0x003c
#define NFP_NET_CFG_MAX_RXRINGS 0x0040