From: dom <dominic.curran@citrix.com>
To: "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@intel.com>,
"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@intel.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ixgbe: Question about Flow Control on 10G
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:56:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <543EC362.5060507@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87618083B2453E4A8714035B62D67992500E1865@FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com>
On 10/14/2014 01:54 PM, Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-
>> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of dom
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 12:01 PM
>> To: Skidmore, Donald C; netdev@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: ixgbe: Question about Flow Control on 10G
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have a question about the ixgbe driver's handling of
>> 'ethtool -a ethX'
>> when the NIC is using fibre.
>>
>> Specifically I don't understand the code introduced by this
>> commit:
>>
>> commit 73d80953dfd1d5a92948005798c857c311c2834b
>> Author: Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@intel.com>
>> Date: Wed Jul 31 02:19:24 2013 +0000
>> Subject: ixgbe: fix fc autoneg ethtool reporting.
>>
>> The function introduced the function:
>> ixgbe_device_supports_autoneg_fc()
>>
>> which gets called by
>> ixgbe_get_pauseparam()/ixgbe_set_pauseparam().
>>
>> specifically there is a case in
>> ixgbe_device_supports_autoneg_fc()
>>
>> case ixgbe_media_type_fiber_qsfp:
>> case ixgbe_media_type_fiber:
>> hw->mac.ops.check_link(hw, &speed, &link_up,
>> false);
>> /* if link is down, assume supported */
>> if (link_up)
>> supported = speed == IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_1GB_FULL ?
>> true : false;
>>
>> If link_up=1 then why is supported only true for a
>> speed=IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_1GB_FULL ?
>>
>> Why is Flow Control not supported for IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_10GB_FULL ?
> For SFP modules (media_type_fiber) flow control autoneg is not supported at 10gig. You can still set flow control manually to enabled/disabled, just not autoneg.
>
> Thanks,
> Emil
Hi Emil
Thank you for the quick answer. I have a one follow-up question if I may...
We noticed that back in 3.2.9 (before 73d80953dfd basically) the
behaviour was different for 10G fibre. i.e. autonegotiate showed 'on'.
# ethtool -a eth1
Pause parameters for eth1:
Autonegotiate: on
RX: on
TX: on
The code:
if (hw->fc.disable_fc_autoneg ||
(hw->fc.current_mode == ixgbe_fc_none))
pause->autoneg = 0;
else
pause->autoneg = 1;
So I assume this old output from 'ethtool -a' for autogen was just
wrong, is that correct ?
[I'm asking cos I _know_ my h/w collegues are going to ask why the change.]
Thanks again
dom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-15 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-14 19:01 ixgbe: Question about Flow Control on 10G dom
2014-10-14 20:54 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2014-10-15 18:56 ` dom [this message]
2014-10-15 23:46 ` Tantilov, Emil S
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=543EC362.5060507@citrix.com \
--to=dominic.curran@citrix.com \
--cc=donald.c.skidmore@intel.com \
--cc=emil.s.tantilov@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.