On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Andrew Boyer <abo...@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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
