> 13/08/2025 10:43, sk...@marvell.com: > > + * Ethernet port type > > You mean "link port type" > Ack.
> > + */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_NONE 0 /**< Not defined */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_TP 1 /**< Twisted Pair */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_AUI 2 /**< Attachment Unit Interface */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_MII 3 /**< Media Independent Interface */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_FIBRE 4 /**< Fibre */ > > In general we use the US word "fiber", > but we are not very consistent, so it is not a strong opinion. > Ack. I will change it. > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_BNC 5 /**< BNC */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_DA 6 /**< Direct Attach copper */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SGMII 7 /**< SGMII */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSGMII 8 /**< QSGMII */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_XFI 9 /**< XFI */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SFI 10 /**< SFI */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_XLAUI 11 /**< XLAUI */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_GAUI 12 /**< GAUI */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_XAUI 13 /**< XAUI */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_GBASE 14 /**< GBASE */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_CAUI 15 /**< CAUI */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_LAUI 16 /**< LAUI */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SFP 17 /**< SFP */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SFP_DD 18 /**< SFP_DD */ > > You should use more full words in comments, at least for DD. I thought that these are standard and well known. So didn't add but there is no harm in adding comments. I will add that. > > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SFP_PLUS 19 /**< SFP_PLUS */ > > Please add more spaces to allow a correct alignment. > Ack. > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_SFP28 20 /**< SFP28 */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSFP 21 /**< QSFP */ > > +#define RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSFP_PLUS 22 /**< QSFP_PLUS */ #define > > +RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSFP28 23 /**< QSFP28 */ #define > > +RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSFP56 24 /**< QSFP56 */ #define > > +RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_QSFP_DD 25 /**< QSFP_DD */ #define > > +RTE_ETH_LINK_TYPE_OTHER 0x1F /**< Other type */ > > Why the last one is in hexadecimal? and why 1F? > > Is there a logic in the order and numbering for this list? > > Why not using an enum? > - As struct rte_eth_link:: link_type is a 5 bits field. Hence used the last value as other/unknown link type. We can change it to decimal value. - I have no reasoning for numbering. - Yes, It be kept in enum. No strong opinion on this. > Thanks > > > >
