From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 7 20:57:13 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97445106566B; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:57:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6588FC0C; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:57:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwn22 with SMTP id 22so1465175wwn.1 for ; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ghvu2UWPuGiPxpZqYRs68yC8TKLEqJr5F2tLNNd/tIs=; b=umnrDAY8FCnma7Re2uBCr5/WuOF211EPbL6Kb08CRPxZnSD5K3yefu4NWEHv4eY+yC EM1Revzp70Bof4Otbyu5Da+QchgGt7HyGLe0UqErdSQ2sHFZ3wR1DnkFNtYTKni0kYvC 3U3IszC1aw83BtdP/EBG0qTJLJrbA3vHsmgKU= Received: by 10.216.9.216 with SMTP id 66mr1360106wet.7.1318021031507; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pyunyh@gmail.com ([174.35.1.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fo7sm18076386wbb.20.2011.10.07.13.57.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pyunyh@gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:55:10 -0700 From: YongHyeon PYUN Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:55:10 -0700 To: Arnaud Lacombe Message-ID: <20111007205510.GD11808@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <1317315666.2777.8.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> <1317323418.2777.14.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> <1317343996.2777.33.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> <1317346748.2777.36.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> <5D267A3F22FD854F8F48B3D2B523819385F35B4738@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <1317683178.15510.25.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> <20111007191154.GB11808@michelle.cdnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , David Christensen , Pyun YongHyeon , Sean Bruno , "davidch@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: bce(4) with IPMI X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:57:13 -0000 On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, YongHyeon PYUN wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:06:18PM -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: > >> On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 15:30 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > >> > > > > I should probably say, this is freebsd7. ?So I'll peruse the > >> > > changelogs > >> > > > > and see if 7 is missing something here. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > sean > >> > > > > >> > > > commenting this change out seems to be helping quite a bit with my > >> > > > issue. ?I think that this behavior may be wrong in the IPMI shared/nic > >> > > > case. ?Thoughts? > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/dev/bce/if_bce.c?r1=210261&r2=210263 > >> > > > >> > > >> > The main reason bce(4) needs to coordinate with NC-SI/IPMI > >> > firmware is to make sure only one software entity manipulates > >> > PHY registers. ?When bce(4) is loaded it will have priority > >> > over firmware (e.g. autoneg, speed, and duplex settings will > >> > be set by the host). ?If you don't bring up the interface in > >> > the host the firmware isn't authorized to do so, which sounds > >> > like your problem. > >> > > >> > Current bce(4) behavior notifies firmware that host driver > >> > is running when resetting the device in bce_attach(). ?We > >> > tell firmware that host driver is still running through > >> > bce_pulse(). ?Not sure how to handle the FreeBSD model where > >> > the driver load doesn't immediately bring the link up. > >> > > >> > Dave > >> > > >> > >> Hrm, understood. > >> > >> What are your thoughts on noting that the IPMI f/w is running and > >> leaving the interface up? ?I'm poking around trying to find the right > >> register bits at initialization to see that this is the case. > >> > > > > How about disabling bce_pulse() for IPMI interface? I guess this > > may result in not sending heart beat from driver to firmware such > > that firmware may take over control back from driver. > > The problem of the approach would be we don't know whether IPMI is > > active in driver at attach time and we may need some way to take > > control back from firmware once admin changed his/her mind to use > > the controller as a normal interface. > > > >> What's even more strange is that our freebsd6 instances don't have this > >> problem. > >> > > > > Can't explain either but probably stable/6 bce(4) may have used old > > firmware. > > > I may look ignorant, but shouldn't the link between the BCM and the > MAC/PHY be totally independent from any OS involvement ? The BCM > should still be able to communicate with the outer world even if the > OS badly screw the NIC configuration, as long as the BCM is alive. > Correct. I just wanted to know the effect of bce_pulse() because I don't have bce(4) controllers with management firmware. > - Arnaud >