> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf Of
> Ernesto Castellotti
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 7:34 AM
> To: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]>; Nguyen, Anthony L
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kwapulinski, Piotr
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v2] ixgbe: Add 1000BASE-BX
> support
>
> On Thu, 2024-02-15 at 15:46 +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.h
> > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.h
> > > index ef72729d7c93..b5bc60916402 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.h
> > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> > > #define IXGBE_SFF_1GBE_COMP_CODES 0x6
> > > #define IXGBE_SFF_10GBE_COMP_CODES 0x3
> > > #define IXGBE_SFF_CABLE_TECHNOLOGY 0x8
> > > +#define IXGBE_SFF_BITRATE_NOMINAL 0xC
> > > #define IXGBE_SFF_CABLE_SPEC_COMP 0x3C
> > > #define IXGBE_SFF_SFF_8472_SWAP 0x5C
> > > #define IXGBE_SFF_SFF_8472_COMP 0x5E
> > > @@ -39,6 +40,7 @@
> > > #define IXGBE_SFF_1GBASESX_CAPABLE 0x1
> > > #define IXGBE_SFF_1GBASELX_CAPABLE 0x2
> > > #define IXGBE_SFF_1GBASET_CAPABLE 0x8
> > > +#define IXGBE_SFF_BASEBX10_CAPABLE 0x64
> >
> > this define looks off - perhaps it should be named
> > IXGBE_SFF_1GBASEBX_CAPABLE?
>
> I had thought about it too, however BASEBX10 for SFF-8472 specification can
> also
> be used for non-Gigabit Ethernet transceivers, so to me it is a bit incorrect
> to call it 1GBASEBX (this is why I have to check the nominal bitrate).
>
> By the way, thanks for the review!
>
> Ernesto
>
Tested-by: Sunitha Mekala <[email protected]> (A Contingent worker at
Intel)
