Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:43:39 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Milan Obuch <freebsd-mips@dino.sk> Cc: Aleksandr Rybalko <ray@ddteam.net>, freebsd-mips@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite works multi-user with -CURRENT. Message-ID: <07C411D8-C5D3-4CD4-896B-844F6514C3DF@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20130523134206.69ea6994@zeta.dino.sk> References: <CACVs6=_UHMvo6DSyXzvXxJ0eCcSsC%2Bk3yZ42ia5TGzgHduT2zA@mail.gmail.com> <20130516111059.38543d57@wind.dino.sk> <20130516131642.adfae355aa3bf7767e9b56e5@ddteam.net> <20130516124248.33ae4e05@wind.dino.sk> <51952112.9010607@rewt.org.uk> <20130517192206.5db0533f@zeta.dino.sk> <51966CB6.2040701@rewt.org.uk> <CACVs6=-0URQ2f7UqVxRdpuGpf103KOW9CTF6FFCGaGhvg3jOMw@mail.gmail.com> <20130520110659.1d1d2165@zeta.dino.sk> <D1F45DEB-3C3C-42D1-8EDE-94B18AB32152@bsdimp.com> <20130520164001.5f7d99b8@zeta.dino.sk> <C48F8AE6-316B-4C4A-AD2B-739C698B0AAC@bsdimp.com> <20130520172508.087daf7b@zeta.dino.sk> <CACVs6=8_y5Rqo9UHnQwbEancfZOqrqEAhcu=EXGGSGLjvayKVg@mail.gmail.com> <20130523070225.4d9a3a59@zeta.dino.sk> <519DA801.2090205@rewt.org.uk> <20130523075537.37e4bcba@zeta.dino.sk> <CACVs6=-hWxgmUS8fN4_68-di=iZiB-pOeNfh-RfjFRiaOASNTQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130523134206.69ea6994@zeta.dino.sk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 23, 2013, at 5:42 AM, Milan Obuch wrote: > On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:59:36 -0700, Juli Mallett = <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> > wrote: >=20 >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Milan Obuch <freebsd-mips@dino.sk> >> wrote: >>> Yes, you are right - now I checked with octe0 connected to 100 >>> megabit switch and it initializes correctly when booting. When I >>> plug gigabit card now instead, it does not work - no communication >>> on interface. Even if I do ifconfig octe down/ifconfig octe up, it >>> does not transmit/receive packets. So I think problem is phy link >>> speed change on live system. Reboot in this case is a big hackish >>> 'workaround' for now - good for tests, not yet fully for real work >>> (but if you know there will be no link speed change it is OK). >>=20 >> The link state management is crappy, I concede. I kept it as it was >> in the Linux code because I wanted to be able to merge driver updates >> from Cavium, but that's not viable given how much they've changed the >> driver anyway. How long did you wait? It could take between 5 >> seconds and a minute for link state to change at runtime in my >> experience. I looked into making this faster at one point and even >> had a patch, but don't know where it is or why I didn't commit it. >>=20 >> If either of you wants to take a crack at fixing it I can explain = what >> to instrument in the driver and what's likely to be the problem. Let >> me know if that might be useful. (Apologies of the latency is high = on >> my responding.) >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Juli. >=20 > If you have any patches to test, some how-to what to look for and try > to change etc... I could try to work a bit on it. It seems there is = not > much freely available resources for Cavium CPUs (I found cnusers.org = is > of interest, it seems) so some leading will be good to have :) cnusers is Cavium's release vehicle for GPL'd code... There's lots of = code available for the Cavium processor, but the docs are kinda hard to = get a hold of... Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?07C411D8-C5D3-4CD4-896B-844F6514C3DF>