[PATCH net-next 0/8] bnx2x: Minor link related fixes

[PATCH net-next 0/8] bnx2x: Minor link related fixes

[Yaniv Rosner]

Hi Dave,
The following patch series is dealing with some small adaptations of the
bnx2x link code which are required to support new HW or fixing some
minor issues with existing HW.

Please consider applying it to net-next.

Thanks,
Yaniv

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] bnx2x: Minor link related fixes

[David Miller]

From: "Yaniv Rosner" <yaniv.rosner@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 22:51:14 +0300

> Hi Dave,
> The following patch series is dealing with some small adaptations of the
> bnx2x link code which are required to support new HW or fixing some
> minor issues with existing HW.
> 
> Please consider applying it to net-next.

All applied, thank you.

Can you explain why 10mbit/100mbit links have to use forced link mode
and do not use autonegotiation by default?  I could understand for
10mbit but 100mbit too?

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] bnx2x: Minor link related fixes

[Eilon Greenstein]

On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 10:45 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> Can you explain why 10mbit/100mbit links have to use forced link mode
> and do not use autonegotiation by default?  I could understand for
> 10mbit but 100mbit too?
> 
Our understanding of the requirements is that if the user selects force
speed of 1G or higher, it is recommended to use autonegotiation with
only that speed advertized. However, when the user selects force speed
of 10M or 100M, assuming the other side is actually forcing the speed,
using autonegotiation will fail and fall back to parallel detect and
that will establish link in HD mode (as required) while the other side
is likely to be using FD this will cause duplex mismatch and many
errors, so it is best to keep 10M/100M truly forced to support older
link partners.

I hope it makes sense,
Eilon

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] bnx2x: Minor link related fixes

[David Miller]

From: "Eilon Greenstein" <eilong@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 21:43:42 +0300

> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 10:45 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> Can you explain why 10mbit/100mbit links have to use forced link mode
>> and do not use autonegotiation by default?  I could understand for
>> 10mbit but 100mbit too?
>> 
> Our understanding of the requirements is that if the user selects force
> speed of 1G or higher, it is recommended to use autonegotiation with
> only that speed advertized. However, when the user selects force speed
> of 10M or 100M, assuming the other side is actually forcing the speed,
> using autonegotiation will fail and fall back to parallel detect and
> that will establish link in HD mode (as required) while the other side
> is likely to be using FD this will cause duplex mismatch and many
> errors, so it is best to keep 10M/100M truly forced to support older
> link partners.

I see, thanks for the explanation.

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] bnx2x: Minor link related fixes

[Ben Hutchings]

On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 21:43 +0300, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 10:45 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > Can you explain why 10mbit/100mbit links have to use forced link mode
> > and do not use autonegotiation by default?  I could understand for
> > 10mbit but 100mbit too?
> > 
> Our understanding of the requirements is that if the user selects force
> speed of 1G or higher, it is recommended to use autonegotiation with
> only that speed advertized.
[...]

This is correct. AN is absolutely required in order to establish the
clock master for 1000BASE-T and 10GBASE-T.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.