From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 15 14:20:23 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BD9106566C for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:20:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jan.winter@kantarmedia.de) Received: from smtp.kantarmedia.de (smtp.kantarmedia.de [212.48.122.104]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C61F8FC08 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.100.217] (helo=mybook.local) by smtp.kantarmedia.de with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1S8BXR-000JGM-QR; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:20:21 +0100 Message-ID: <4F61FA9A.5000805@kantarmedia.de> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:20:10 +0100 From: Jan Winter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120220 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pyunyh@gmail.com References: <4F5F46DE.5050608@kantarmedia.de> <20120314184047.GA8023@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <4F60AC6C.2060805@kantarmedia.de> <20120315172928.GB3295@michelle.cdnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <20120315172928.GB3295@michelle.cdnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bce: Device not configured X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:20:24 -0000 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: mem >>>> 0xda000000-0xdbffffff irq 36 at device 0.0 on pci1 >>>> miibus0: on bce0 >>>> brgphy0: 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: mem >>>> 0xdc000000-0xddffffff irq 48 at device 0.1 on pci1 >>>> miibus1: on bce1 >>>> brgphy1: 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 metric 0 mtu 1500 >> >> options=c01bb >> >> capabilities=c01bb >> 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 >> media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT) >> 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: 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: 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?