2015-05-27 11:15, Marc Sune: > On 27/05/15 06:02, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Why not starting with lower values? Some new drivers may be interested > > by lower speed. > > Ok, but which values? 1Mbps FD/HD? Even lower than that? > > If you have some NIC(s) in mind with lower values, please point me to > that and I will collect&add the missing speeds.
No sorry, I missed how low your first values were. > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_10M_HD (1 << 0) /*< 10 Mbps half-duplex> */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_10M_FD (1 << 1) /*< 10 Mbps full-duplex> */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_100M_HD (1 << 2) /*< 100 Mbps half-duplex> */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_100M_FD (1 << 3) /*< 100 Mbps full-duplex> */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_1G (1 << 4) /*< 1 Gbps > */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_2_5G (1 << 5) /*< 2.5 Gbps > */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_5G (1 << 6) /*< 5 Gbps > */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_10G (1 << 7) /*< 10 Mbps > */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_20G (1 << 8) /*< 20 Gbps > */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_25G (1 << 9) /*< 25 Gbps > */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_40G (1 << 10) /*< 40 Gbps > */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_50G (1 << 11) /*< 50 Gbps > */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_56G (1 << 12) /*< 56 Gbps > */ > >> +#define ETH_SPEED_CAP_100G (1 << 13) /*< 100 Gbps > */ > > We should note that rte_eth_link is using ETH_LINK_SPEED_* constants > > which are not some bitmaps so we have to create these new constants. > > Yes, I can add that to the patch description (1/2). > > > Furthermore, rte_eth_link.link_speed is an uint16_t so it is limited > > to 40G. Should we use some constant bitmaps here also? > > I also thought about converting link_speed into a bitmap to unify the > constants before starting the patch (there is redundancy), but I wanted > to be minimally invasive; changing link to a bitmap can break existing apps. > > I can also merge them if we think is a better idea. Maybe. Someone against this idea? > > What about removing _CAP suffix from your constants? > > I added the suffix to make clearer the distinction with link speeds. I > can remove it if we merge both or if we consider it is not necessary. > > > > > [...] > >> + uint32_t speed_capa; /**< Supported speeds bitmap (ETH_SPEED_CAP_). */ > > If the constants are ETH_SPEED_CAP, why not wording this variable speed_cap? > > I followed the convention of the existing rx/tx offload capability bitmaps: > > marc at dev:~/git/bisdn/msune/xdpd/libs/dpdk/lib$ grep _capa\; * -R > librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h: uint32_t rx_offload_capa; /**< Device RX > offload capabilities. */ > librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h: uint32_t tx_offload_capa; /**< Device TX > offload capabilities. */ > > I am fine with speed_cap or speed_caps, but I think we should have some > consistency on how we name bitmaps. You're right. > If we would want to make the bitmaps more explicit, we could define some > helper typedefs in EAL: > > typedef uint16_t bitmap16_t; > typedef uint32_t bitmap32_t; > typedef uint64_t bitmap64_t; > > and replace the bitmaps of the structs, again specially the ones used by > the users. No, if we want to show this variable is a bitmap, the variable name may be changed, not the type. It would bring clarity when reading code using this variable but I think it's not really needed.