Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:25:10 -0400 From: Alexander Sack <pisymbol@gmail.com> To: Andrew Boyer <aboyer@averesystems.com> Cc: Juli Mallett <jmallett@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Dual-rate transceivers with ixgbe? Message-ID: <AANLkTikDM5l71isz28jJNv7nk9K-kmqTKptAC_yY3ACq@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <82D310BD-48DE-4F79-84C6-356AB4F04C42@averesystems.com> References: <AANLkTinO9NZ8F9TeS68I2ULQgdlMGzlXkinCsywWosAM@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinS607kd3wc3F2WWmA6Zk9KL4GhscxEHPtcvxA5@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimkxOn9h6SAkTPDqfUM9kl2CZiFrZC_BuNDfRyB@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikcQMXk8UebmaynOeeInGiwx8yr0NMGE1yJfm8u@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTil_YRvU54qHtIMO7mP4yYjojeHVrCHaRcl2K2Ug@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim5Ao9nSh6T6HF7NztLgvbTzxuVyr8lSXAJ7bMo@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim9-Za5mzLTw7MDAHY_TuIQsQ0SF0_1xpxyGY7v@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik-V2frmirwBLtg4RemdEVvPhUmVsOP7CqEkvUi@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikqjQic_M3mX7OTx-V0OJxbk4vzxajPmHmIUAKa@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikjs42mE5QHnSvZ9x9DI1xfYowvIES-DRORz6hH@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTilqb4y0zEmom0jyg-HEi4yp8D3nkkbUWGHUjWPt@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinOnzvjrmmLb3w5jOYEk02CY2tWCwnKxTv8sHS8@mail.gmail.com> <82D310BD-48DE-4F79-84C6-356AB4F04C42@averesystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Andrew Boyer <aboyer@averesystems.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>
>>> One thing that the base driver probably ought to do is not fail in
>>> attach if there's an unrecognized SFP+ module. Since we get
>>> interrupts on module change (although this doesn't seem to always work
>>> *entirely* right in the stock sources, mostly wrt stored values of
>>> AUTOC and the like) it should be possible to bring the interface up
>>> with the unsupported (and disabled) SFP+ module and do the SFP+ module
>>> probing we already do on hot-swap.
>>
>> Alright, let me see if I can test that. Let me rephrase so I validate
>> what you are saying:
>>
>> The driver can come up with an unsupported module but disable the
>> interface (ifconfig shows the interface, etc.).
>>
>> If you then hot-swap a supported SFP, it should come up then with a
>> ifconfig down/up cycle. Right?
>>
>> As it stand now, if you load the driver with an unsupported module, it
>> will not attach at all causing you to reload the entire driver OR
>> reboot the box to have it reattach to the other SFP.
>>
>
> We use this patch to allow the driver to attach when no module is installed. This might be a starting point for you. I haven't tested it without all of our other changes in place so my apologies if it doesn't quite work. We only have Intel modules around for testing.
>
> -Andrew
>
> --- ixgbe.c 2010-06-10 16:53:08.000000000 -0400
> +++ ixgbe.c 2010-06-10 16:55:26.000000000 -0400
> @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@
> } else if (error == IXGBE_ERR_SFP_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> device_printf(dev,"Unsupported SFP+ Module\n");
>
> - if (error) {
> + if (error && error != IXGBE_ERR_SFP_NOT_PRESENT) {
> error = EIO;
> device_printf(dev,"Hardware Initialization Failure\n");
> goto err_late;
>
> --- ixgbe_82598.c 2010-06-10 16:53:24.000000000 -0400
> +++ ixgbe_82598.c 2010-06-10 16:56:31.000000000 -0400
> @@ -257,10 +257,6 @@
> ret_val = ixgbe_get_sfp_init_sequence_offsets(hw,
> &list_offset,
> &data_offset);
> - if (ret_val != IXGBE_SUCCESS) {
> - ret_val = IXGBE_ERR_SFP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
> - goto out;
> - }
> break;
> default:
> break;
Thank you Andrew! I am on the same path as above! (though I also had
82599 changes which may not be meaningful to your application).
I will have access to numerous SFP/SFP+ very soon (all Finisar based -
though I think the Intel supplied ones are Finisar too anyway). I
will test the dual-rate as well with both 10G and 1G traffic.
Stay tuned, I want to test all of this in the lab.
-aps
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikDM5l71isz28jJNv7nk9K-kmqTKptAC_yY3ACq>