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 <pyu...@gmail.com> 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 > _______________________________________________ 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"
