Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:51:35 -0700 From: YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh@gmail.com> To: enoch <ixew@hotmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [nfe] DHCP failure on 8-stable Message-ID: <20120410195135.GA5349@michelle.cdnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <87fwccq0do.fsf@hotmail.com> References: <20120403183521.GA7380@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <87obr95pxh.fsf@hotmail.com> <20120403225422.GB7380@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <87sjgk5czo.fsf@hotmail.com> <20120404210445.GB10911@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <87vclfwqp4.fsf@hotmail.com> <20120405161152.GA14289@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <87iphejaar.fsf@hotmail.com> <20120409183704.GA1668@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <87fwccq0do.fsf@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 01:29:55PM -0400, enoch wrote: > YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:36:12PM -0400, enoch wrote: > >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 09:51:19AM -0400, enoch wrote: > >> >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:37:15AM -0400, enoch wrote: > >> >> >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 01:45:30AM -0400, enoch wrote: > >> >> >> >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 07:36:36PM -0400, enoch wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 03:50:02AM -0400, enoch wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> On 04/02/2012 03:52 PM, YongHyeon PYUN wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:40:44AM -0400, enoch wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 03/30/2012 19:38, YongHyeon PYUN wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:01:52AM -0400, enoch wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Recently it became extremely difficult to pass the DHCP discovery step > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> on boot. Now I am using the buggy [nve] instead. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Can anyone help? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Did you set synchronous_dhclient option in rc.conf? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes: ifconfig_nfe0="SYNCDHCP" > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess [nfe] is undergoing gradual devel changes of some sort as before > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it had some chance of reporting "empty headers" on initial ifconfig and > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> refusing to work. Sorry, I should have reported when encountering the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> first problems rather than solve by reboot. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Would you show me the output of both dmesg(nfe(4) and its PHY only) > >> >> >> >> >> >> > and 'sysctl dev.nfe.0.stats'? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > It would be also helpful to know whether nfe(4) still sees > >> >> >> >> >> >> > incoming traffic. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Does assigning static IP work? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Static IP direct communication attempt from this desktop to another > >> >> >> >> >> >> laptop through a crossover cable fails as follows. Thanks. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 > >> >> >> >> >> >> options=82008<VLAN_MTU,WOL_MAGIC,LINKSTATE> > >> >> >> >> >> >> ether 00:1f:bc:00:19:dc > >> >> >> >> >> >> inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 > >> >> >> >> >> >> media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT > >> >> >> >> >> >> <full-duplex,flowcontrol,master,rxpause,txpause>) > >> >> >> >> >> >> status: active > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: link state changed to UP > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: <NVIDIA nForce 430 MCP13 Networking Adapter> port 0xf200-0xf207 > >> >> >> >> >> >> mem 0xefffb000-0xefffbfff irq 21 at device 20.0 on pci0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> miibus1: <MII bus> on nfe0 > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > It seems you've omitted PHY driver here. What PHY driver was > >> >> >> >> >> > attached to nfe(4)? > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> miibus1: <MII bus> on nfe0 > >> >> >> >> >> rgephy1: <RTL8169S/8110S/8211B media interface> PHY 1 on miibus1 > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: Ethernet address: 00:1f:bc:00:19:dc > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: [FILTER] > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: discard frame w/o leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0) > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: discard frame w/o leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0) > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: link state changed to UP > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: discard frame w/o leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0) > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: discard frame w/o leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0) > >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: discard frame w/o leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0) > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.frame_errors: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.extra_bytes: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.late_cols: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.runts: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.jumbos: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.fifo_overuns: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.crc_errors: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.fae: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.len_errors: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.unicast: 56 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.multicast: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.broadcast: 280 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.octets: 7517 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.zero_rexmits: 51 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.one_rexmits: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.multi_rexmits: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.late_cols: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.fifo_underuns: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.carrier_losts: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.excess_deferrals: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.retry_errors: 0 > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Thanks. Would you show me the output of "pciconf -lcbv"? > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> nfe0@pci0:0:20:0: class=0x068000 card=0x10003842 chip=0x026910de rev=0xa3 hdr=0x00 > >> >> >> >> >> vendor = 'NVIDIA Corporation' > >> >> >> >> >> device = 'MCP51 Network Bus Enumerator' > >> >> >> >> >> class = bridge > >> >> >> >> >> bar [10] = type Memory, range 32, base 0xefffb000, size 4096, enabled > >> >> >> >> >> bar [14] = type I/O Port, range 32, base 0xf200, size 8, enabled > >> >> >> >> >> cap 01[44] = powerspec 2 supports D0 D1 D2 D3 current D0 > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Interestingly, now that nfe0 is using a static IP it sometimes boots > >> >> >> >> >> up properly. Are you interested in its good working? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Yes I am. Would you try attached patch and let me know whether the > >> >> >> >> > patch makes any difference on your box? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Sorry to report: The patch was applied (to 8-stable latest code) but out > >> >> >> >> of 3 boots only one succeeded. Same stream of "nfe0: discard frame w/o > >> >> >> >> leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0)" messages. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Ok, back out previous patch and try attached one. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> With these two patch files applied to the 8-stable code, buildkernel > >> >> >> fails as follows. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> /usr/src/sys/modules/nfe/../../dev/nfe/if_nfe.c: In function 'nfe_attach': > >> >> >> /usr/src/sys/modules/nfe/../../dev/nfe/if_nfe.c:629: error: 'struct mii_softc' has no member named 'mii_mpd_oui' > >> >> >> /usr/src/sys/modules/nfe/../../dev/nfe/if_nfe.c:629: error: 'struct mii_softc' has no member named 'mii_mpd_oui' > >> >> >> /usr/src/sys/modules/nfe/../../dev/nfe/if_nfe.c:630: error: 'struct mii_softc' has no member named 'mii_mpd_model' > >> >> >> *** Error code 1 > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Oops, sorry I forgot that this part of change was not merged to > >> >> > stable/8. I've attached a minimal patch which would be cleanly > >> >> > applied to stable/8. > >> >> > >> >> Wasn't the attached diff3 already included in diff2? Seems to me the > >> >> wrong file was attached this time. Please advise. > >> > > >> > diff2 is subset of diff3 but it can be merged to stable/8 and > >> > stable/7. Probably diff2 may have better chance to fully > >> > reinitialize PHY but let's see whether diff3 also makes difference > >> > on your box. > >> > So back out any changes and apply diff3. > >> > >> I'm sorry, this if_nfereg.h patch is not enough. Boot failure frequency > >> is just the same. I guess I should consider migrating to 9-stable. The > >> problem with 9-stable is that most of the time it does not build :-( > >> > >> Thanks for your efforts. Enoch. > > > > Here is updated patch for stable/8. Let me know whether it makes > > any difference. > > Sorry, the diff4 patch compiled but made no difference (using static > IP). On first boot the "w/o leading ethernet header" problem showed > up. Can you generate diagnostic messages that I can collect for you from > dmesg or messages? > Due to lack of documentation, I also don't know which registers should I poke at this moment. This reminds me old experimental patch which tried to address reset/DMA issues. Would you try that? Note, I don't have access to nfe(4) so the patch was not tested at all. You can find the patch at the following URL. http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/nfe.reset.diff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120410195135.GA5349>