| Message ID | 1274381113.28702.6.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com |
|---|---|
| State | RFC, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On 2010-05-20 20:45, Eilon Greenstein wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 11:09 -0700, Krzysztof Olędzki wrote: >> On 2010-05-20 19:49, Eilon Greenstein wrote: >>> On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 10:08 -0700, Krzysztof Olędzki wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I would like to connect a dual port SFP+ NetXtreme II BCM57711 >>>> 10-Gigabit NIC to a HP J9309A ProCurve 4-Port 10GbE SFP+ zl Module >>>> using a HP ProCurve 10-GbE SFP+ 7m Direct Attach Cable (J9285B). >>>> >>>> Unfortuantely, it does not work. :( After connecting the switch and >>>> the server together and loading the bnx2x module the switch logs: >>>> >>>> I 05/20/10 18:32:23 ports: port E4 is Blocked by STP >>>> I 05/20/10 18:32:23 ports: port E4 is now on-line >>>> >>>> Here is the dmesg output from the server: >>>> >>>> Broadcom NetXtreme II 5771x 10Gigabit Ethernet Driver bnx2x 1.52.1-5 (2009/11/09) >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 38 (level, low) -> IRQ 38 >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.0: setting latency timer to 64 >>>> bnx2x: part number 394D4342-31373735-31314131-473331 >>>> bnx2x: Loading bnx2x-e1h-5.2.7.0.fw >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.0: firmware: requesting bnx2x-e1h-5.2.7.0.fw >>>> eth4: Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM57711 XGb (A0) PCI-E x8 5GHz (Gen2) found at mem dc000000, IRQ 38, node addr 00:10:18:5f:e4:b4 >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.1: PCI INT B -> GSI 45 (level, low) -> IRQ 45 >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.1: setting latency timer to 64 >>>> bnx2x: part number 394D4342-31373735-31314131-473331 >>>> bnx2x: Loading bnx2x-e1h-5.2.7.0.fw >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.1: firmware: requesting bnx2x-e1h-5.2.7.0.fw >>>> eth5: Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM57711 XGb (A0) PCI-E x8 5GHz (Gen2) found at mem dd000000, IRQ 45, node addr 00:10:18:5f:e4:b6 >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.0: irq 97 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.0: irq 98 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.0: irq 99 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.0: irq 100 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.0: irq 101 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.0: irq 102 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x: eth4: using MSI-X IRQs: sp 97 fp[0] 99 ... fp[3] 102 >>>> ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth4: link is not ready >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.1: irq 103 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.1: irq 104 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.1: irq 105 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.1: irq 106 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.1: irq 107 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x 0000:04:00.1: irq 108 for MSI/MSI-X >>>> bnx2x: eth5: using MSI-X IRQs: sp 103 fp[0] 105 ... fp[3] 108 >>>> ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth5: link is not ready >>>> bnx2x: eth5 NIC Link is Down >>>> bnx2x: eth5 NIC Link is Down >>>> >>>> Loading the driver with debug mode enabled (modprobe bnx2x debug=0x20004) I got: >>> Thank you for this debug information! You saved one email round trip :) >> >> Hehe, thanks. >> >>> However, I still need some more information about the FW version and >>> nvram settings. Can you please send me the output of ethtool -i >> >> # ethtool -i eth5 >> driver: bnx2x >> version: 1.52.1-5 >> firmware-version: BC:5.0.13 PHY:0aa0:0406 >> bus-info: 0000:04:00.1 >> >>> and ethtool -e? Since ethtool -e is quite long, it is best to send >>> it as an attached file. >> >> Attached. > > Almost everything seems to be in order. Almost - since you don't get > link... I don't think I have tried using this kind of Direct Attach > Cable - so maybe it just needs some more time. Let's see if the > following makes any difference (other than delay the failure for another > 2.7 seconds): > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bnx2x_link.c b/drivers/net/bnx2x_link.c > index ff70be8..bcee38c 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/bnx2x_link.c > +++ b/drivers/net/bnx2x_link.c > @@ -3113,7 +3113,7 @@ static u8 > bnx2x_wait_for_sfp_module_initialized(struct link_params *params) > u16 timeout; > /* Initialization time after hot-plug may take up to 300ms for > some > phys type ( e.g. JDSU ) */ > - for (timeout = 0; timeout< 60; timeout++) { > + for (timeout = 0; timeout< 600; timeout++) { > if (bnx2x_read_sfp_module_eeprom(params, 1, 1,&val) > == 0) { > DP(NETIF_MSG_LINK, "SFP+ module initialization " > > If it does help, be sure to let me know how much time it took (you > should have this debug print). Still no luck. :( The kernel printed many more "Got bad status 0x0 when reading from SFP+ EEPROM" messages. Finally I got: "SFP+ module is not initialized". Best regards, Krzysztof Olędzki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Some simple/simplistic thoughts/questions... Has the DAC been used successfully prior to this? Do you have another HP ProCurve 10-GbE SFP+ 7m Direct Attach Cable (J9285B) to try? There's a transceiver and presumably an EEPROM at both ends of a DAC right? If the EEPROM at one end were "bad" might the 57711 be happier with the other end of the DAC? Getting some sort of error message at the switch side, which may (or may not) have more detailed diagnostics might help. rick jones -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 2010-05-20 22:25, Rick Jones wrote: > Some simple/simplistic thoughts/questions... > > Has the DAC been used successfully prior to this? Yes. It was successfully used to connect two HP switches, before I received SFP+ SR modules, that allowed me to put the switches into distanced rooms. > Do you have another HP ProCurve 10-GbE SFP+ 7m Direct Attach Cable (J9285B) to try? Yes. The same situation. > There's a transceiver and presumably an EEPROM at both ends of a DAC right? Yes, I think there should be one. ;) > If > the EEPROM at one end were "bad" might the 57711 be happier with the other end > of the DAC? Tested both ends. The same situation. :| > Getting some sort of error message at the switch side, which may > (or may not) have more detailed diagnostics might help. There is no error message at the switch side. The switch shows that everything is correct. Best regards, Krzysztof Olędzki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/net/bnx2x_link.c b/drivers/net/bnx2x_link.c index ff70be8..bcee38c 100644 --- a/drivers/net/bnx2x_link.c +++ b/drivers/net/bnx2x_link.c @@ -3113,7 +3113,7 @@ static u8 bnx2x_wait_for_sfp_module_initialized(struct link_params *params) u16 timeout; /* Initialization time after hot-plug may take up to 300ms for some phys type ( e.g. JDSU ) */ - for (timeout = 0; timeout < 60; timeout++) { + for (timeout = 0; timeout < 600; timeout++) { if (bnx2x_read_sfp_module_eeprom(params, 1, 1, &val)