Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:20:10 +0100
From:      Jan Winter <jan.winter@kantarmedia.de>
To:        pyunyh@gmail.com
Cc:        stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: bce: Device not configured
Message-ID:  <4F61FA9A.5000805@kantarmedia.de>
In-Reply-To: <20120315172928.GB3295@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
References:  <4F5F46DE.5050608@kantarmedia.de> <20120314184047.GA8023@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <4F60AC6C.2060805@kantarmedia.de> <20120315172928.GB3295@michelle.cdnetworks.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/15/12 18:29, YongHyeon PYUN wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 03:34:20PM +0100, Jan Winter wrote:
>> On 03/14/12 19:40, YongHyeon PYUN wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 02:08:46PM +0100, Jan Winter wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> on an Dell Blade m610 is not possible to change the network media option:
>>>>
>>>> ifconfig bce0 media 100baseTX mediaopt full-duplex up
>>>> ifconfig: SIOCSIFMEDIA (media): Device not configured
>>>>
>>>> Setting the media option to "autoselect" and connecting the m610 to a
>>>> 100 MBit switch, I always get "no carrier"
>>>> only 1g full-duplex seems to be working. I have tested this on
>>>> 8.3-prerelease and 9-stable
>>>>
>>>> any Ideas?
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> pciconf -lv
>>>> bce0@pci0:1:0:0:        class=0x020000 card=0x02871028 chip=0x163a14e4
>>>> rev=0x20 hdr=0x00
>>>>      vendor     = 'Broadcom Corporation'
>>>>      device     = 'NetXtreme II BCM5709S Gigabit Ethernet'
>>>>      class      = network
>>>>      subclass   = ethernet
>>>>
>>>> dmesg
>>>> bce0:<Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5709 1000Base-SX (C0)>   mem
>>>> 0xda000000-0xdbffffff irq 36 at device 0.0 on pci1
>>>> miibus0:<MII bus>   on bce0
>>>> brgphy0:<BCM5709S 1000/2500baseSX PHY>   PHY 2 on miibus0
>>>> brgphy0:  1000baseSX-FDX, auto
>>>> bce0: Ethernet address: 00:26:b9:fb:04:0c
>>>> bce0: ASIC (0x57092000); Rev (C0); Bus (PCIe x4, 2.5Gbps); B/C (5.0.11);
>>>> Bufs (RX:2;TX:2;PG:8); Flags (SPLT|MSI|MFW); MFW (NCSI 2.0.5)
>>>> Coal (RX:6,6,18,18; TX:20,20,80,80)
>>>> bce1:<Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5709 1000Base-SX (C0)>   mem
>>>> 0xdc000000-0xddffffff irq 48 at device 0.1 on pci1
>>>> miibus1:<MII bus>   on bce1
>>>> brgphy1:<BCM5709S 1000/2500baseSX PHY>   PHY 2 on miibus1
>>>> brgphy1:  1000baseSX-FDX, auto
>>>> bce1: Ethernet address: 00:26:b9:fb:04:0e
>>>> bce1: ASIC (0x57092000); Rev (C0); Bus (PCIe x4, 2.5Gbps); B/C (5.0.11);
>>>> Bufs (RX:2;TX:2;PG:8); Flags (SPLT|MSI|MFW); MFW (NCSI 2.0.5)
>>>> Coal (RX:6,6,18,18; TX:20,20,80,80)
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure you're seeing one of long standing remote PHY issue of
>>> blade box but would you try the patch at the following URL?
>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/bce/bce.rphy.diff
>>>
>>> After applying the patch, show me the dmesg output(bce(4) and
>>> brgphy(4) related ones) and 'ifconfig -m bce0'.
>>> Note, the patch was not tested at all(lack of hardware).
>> Hello,
>>
>> thank you very much, for your quick support
>> Now its looking much better
>>
>> ifconfig -m bce0
>> bce0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST>  metric 0 mtu 1500
>>
>> options=c01bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,VLAN_HWTSO,LINKSTATE>
>>
>> capabilities=c01bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,VLAN_HWTSO,LINKSTATE>
>>          ether 00:26:b9:fb:04:0c
>>          inet 192.168.100.30 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.100.255
>>          inet6 fe80::226:b9ff:fefb:40c%bce0 prefixlen 64 tentative
>> scopeid 0x1
>>          nd6 options=29<PERFORMNUD,IFDISABLED,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
>>          media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT<full-duplex>)
>>          status: active
>>          supported media:
>>                  media autoselect
>>                  media 1000baseT mediaopt full-duplex
>>                  media 1000baseT
>>                  media 100baseTX mediaopt full-duplex
>>                  media 100baseTX
>>                  media 10baseT/UTP mediaopt full-duplex
>>                  media 10baseT/UTP
>>
>> dmesg:
>> .....
>> bce0:<Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5709 1000Base-SX (C0)>  mem
>> 0xda000000-0xdbffffff irq 36 at device 0.0 on pci1
>> bce0: attempting to allocate 1 MSI vectors (16 supported)
>> msi: routing MSI IRQ 256 to local APIC 16 vector 52
>> bce0: using IRQ 256 for MSI
>> bce0: Remote PHY : TP
>> bce0: bpf attached
>> bce0: Ethernet address: 00:26:b9:fb:04:0c
>> bce0: ASIC (0x57092000); Rev (C0); Bus (PCIe x4, 2.5Gbps); B/C (5.0.11);
>> Bufs (RX:2;TX:2;PG:8); Flags (SPLT|MSI|Remote PHY(TP)|MFW); MFW (NCSI 2.0.5)
>> Coal (RX:6,6,18,18; TX:20,20,80,80)
>> bce1:<Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5709 1000Base-SX (C0)>  mem
>> 0xdc000000-0xddffffff irq 48 at device 0.1 on pci1
>> bce1: attempting to allocate 1 MSI vectors (16 supported)
>> msi: routing MSI IRQ 257 to local APIC 16 vector 53
>> bce1: using IRQ 257 for MSI
>> bce1: Remote PHY : TP
>> bce1: bpf attached
>> bce1: Ethernet address: 00:26:b9:fb:04:0e
>> bce1: ASIC (0x57092000); Rev (C0); Bus (PCIe x4, 2.5Gbps); B/C (5.0.11);
>> Bufs (RX:2;TX:2;PG:8); Flags (SPLT|MSI|Remote PHY(TP)|MFW); MFW (NCSI 2.0.5)
>> Coal (RX:6,6,18,18; TX:20,20,80,80)
>> .....
>>
>> I have done a quick test with 100 and 1000 MBit, both working very well.
> Thanks a lot for testing.  This patch was made long time ago but I
> haven't had chance to commit it due to lack of access to hardware.
> Because the patch bypasses mii(4) layer and makes it hard to read
> code, I didn't like the patch but it seems the patch makes bce(4)
> usable on blade boxes at least.
> I'll commit the patch next week.
>
>> Its possible to get a Patch for 8 Stable?
>>
> I will do MFC to stable/[7-9]. And bce.rphy.diff should be applied
> cleanly to stable/[7-9].

I getting erros with the 8-stable source

cd /usr/src
patch < /usr/home/jan/bce.rphy.diff
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|Index: sys/dev/bce/if_bce.c
|===================================================================
|--- sys/dev/bce/if_bce.c    (revision 232950)
|+++ sys/dev/bce/if_bce.c    (working copy)
--------------------------
Patching file sys/dev/bce/if_bce.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 364.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 373.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 420.
Hunk #4 succeeded at 760.
Hunk #5 succeeded at 1307.
Hunk #6 succeeded at 1357.
Hunk #7 succeeded at 1396.
Hunk #8 failed at 1428.
Hunk #9 succeeded at 1578.
Hunk #10 succeeded at 2045.
Hunk #11 succeeded at 2074.
Hunk #12 succeeded at 2113.
Hunk #13 succeeded at 2123.
Hunk #14 succeeded at 2133.
Hunk #15 succeeded at 3217.
Hunk #16 succeeded at 5106.
Hunk #17 succeeded at 6171.
Hunk #18 failed at 6255.
Hunk #19 succeeded at 6366.
Hunk #20 succeeded at 6465.
Hunk #21 succeeded at 6510.
Hunk #22 succeeded at 7223.
Hunk #23 succeeded at 7830.
Hunk #24 succeeded at 8527.
Hunk #25 succeeded at 8554.
2 out of 25 hunks failed--saving rejects to sys/dev/bce/if_bce.c.rej
Hmm...  The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|Index: sys/dev/bce/if_bcereg.h
|===================================================================
|--- sys/dev/bce/if_bcereg.h    (revision 232950)
|+++ sys/dev/bce/if_bcereg.h    (working copy)
--------------------------
Patching file sys/dev/bce/if_bcereg.h using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 814.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 1096.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 6491.


with 9-stable  i didn't see that errors. Or did I something wrong?







Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F61FA9A.5000805>