Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:11:54 -0700 From: YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh@gmail.com> To: Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, David Christensen <davidch@broadcom.com>, "davidch@freebsd.org" <davidch@freebsd.org>, Pyun YongHyeon <yongari@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bce(4) with IPMI Message-ID: <20111007191154.GB11808@michelle.cdnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <1317683178.15510.25.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > Sean >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111007191154.GB11808>