From patchwork Fri Dec 12 07:41:55 2008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: ohashi-h@mb.dnes.nec.co.jp X-Patchwork-Id: 13668 X-Patchwork-Delegate: davem@davemloft.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.176.167]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081E0DE0DC for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:42:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757231AbYLLHm2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:42:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757210AbYLLHm1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:42:27 -0500 Received: from TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.193]:41021 "EHLO tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756909AbYLLHmU (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:42:20 -0500 Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.192]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBC7g83b004484; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:42:08 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id mBC7g8o08231; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:42:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp (mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp [10.25.43.7]) by mailsv4.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBC7g7Bt021554; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:42:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from matabe.jp.nec.com ([10.26.220.20] [10.26.220.20]) by mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp with ESMTP id BT-MMP-446982; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:42:07 +0900 Received: from DNES-SD-OHASHI2 ([10.68.76.127] [10.68.76.127]) by mail.jp.nec.com with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:42:07 +0900 To: =?utf-8?B?SmVmZiBLaXJzaGVyIA==?= Cc: jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, bruce.w.allan@intel.com, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com, john.ronciak@intel.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com, ohashi-h@mb.dnes.nec.co.jp Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IGUxMDAwOiBMRUQgaW5kaWNhdGVzIHRyb3VibGUs?= =?utf-8?B?IGFuZCBbUEFUQ0hdIGVuYWJsZS9kaXNhYmxlIG9mIGZvcmNlLWxpbmst?= =?utf-8?B?dXA=?= In-reply-to: <20081204182421ohashi-h@mail.jp.nec.com> Message-Id: <20081212164155ohashi-h@mail.jp.nec.com> References: <20081204182421ohashi-h@mail.jp.nec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: StarOffice21/MailClient[4.65 Step9] From: ohashi-h@mb.dnes.nec.co.jp Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:41:55 +0900 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org ohashi-h@mb.dnes.nec.co.jp wrote (2008/12/04 18:24:21 +0900 )： > >Jeff Kirsher wrote (2008/12/03 17:12:00 +0900 )： > >>On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:36 PM, wrote: >>> From: Hiroki Ohashi >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I faced the following situations. >>> The LED of NIC was indicated, even when the system was not linked >>> the network (auto-negotiation failed or link partner cannot >>> auto-negotiate). >>> LED should be indicate only when the network was linked. >>> And so, it is a problem that LED indicates. >>> >>> I think the indicating the LED is a problem for maintenance. >>> I cannot know the condition of the link, because I confirm >>> to link up by LED's indication. >>> >>> We are using 82571EB ethernet controler and serdes interface. >>> ... >> >>I am a little confused. You state you are using an NIC (82571EB) >>which is currently not supported by e1000, but is supported in the >>e1000e driver. Then you suggest a change to the e1000 driver to >>resolve an issue you see with your 82571EB NIC. >> >>So I would suggest you use the e1000e driver first. > >Thank you, I will try again using e1000e driver. > >>Also the Link LED is supposed to indicated that there is a "physical" >>link, in which case you can have a physical connection and still fail >>auto-neg. So I do not necessarily agree with your interpretation of >>what a link LED is supposed to indicate. > >My explanation was insufficiently. >My system was NOT connected LAN cable to NIC, but the Link LED >was indicated. >So the problem is the LED is indicated without connecting the cable. > I tried again using kernel 2.6.27.8 (e1000e driver). The LED of NIC was indicated, even when the system was not connected LAN cable. When I deleted logic of force-link-up (the following modification.), the LED was turned off. I think it is a problem that LED indicates. If you have any good way to modify, please let me know. (Patches are considering.) ctrl |= (E1000_CTRL_SLU | E1000_CTRL_FD); ew32(CTRL, ctrl); +#endif - /* Configure Flow Control after forcing link up. */ ret_val = e1000e_config_fc_after_link_up(hw); if (ret_val) { ================================================ Hiroki Ohashi --- 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 ================================================ --- drivers/net/e1000e/lib.c.org +++ drivers/net/e1000e/lib.c @@ -539,8 +539,6 @@ s32 e1000e_check_for_serdes_link(struct mac->autoneg_failed = 1; return 0; } +#if 0 hw_dbg(hw, "NOT RXing /C/, disable AutoNeg and force link.\n"); /* Disable auto-negotiation in the TXCW register */ @@ -550,7 +548,7 @@ s32 e1000e_check_for_serdes_link(struct ctrl = er32(CTRL);