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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).