Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:24:07 -0500 | From | Sowmini Varadhan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 net] i40e: Look up MAC address in Open Firmware or IDPROM |
| |
On (10/30/15 19:13), Sowmini Varadhan wrote: > > In looking at a couple other drivers, I see the difference being that > > they typically are writing the primary mac filter on probe (and any > > other reset), whereas the i40e "knows" that the default mac address is > > already set up as the filter and doesn't bother with a redundant write. > > If you want to add this Open Filter code, you'll need to arrange for > > this write to happen. You can't call i40e_set_mac() to do it, but you > > can see the i40e_aq_mac_address_write() code there that is involved in > > updating the mac address as an example. You probably will want to look > > at section 4.2.1.5.3 of the XL710 data sheet in order to know how to > > use i40e_aq_mac_address_write() for your situation. > > ok. I'll look into it (and also why this did not show up in my testing).
So I figured out why it all "seemed to work" - my test env had another obscure init process that was marking the link promiscuous. I guess that was having the side-effect of somehow setting the filters above.
But looks like there's more to getting this right than just calling i40e_aq_mac_address_write() - I think it also needs a i40e_aq_add_macvlan().
I was able to get this to work by calling a the core part of i40e_set_mac just before register_netdev. In my patch (RFC patch in a separate thread - please review) I now have this sequence in i40e_probe
err = i40e_get_platform_mac_addr(pdev, hw->mac.addr); if (err) i40e_get_mac_addr(hw, hw->mac.addr); : i40e_setup_pf_switch(..);
And the resulting i40e_vsi_setup() from i40e_setup_pf_switch() will end up doing the right thing by invoking the guts of i40e_set_mac(), which is basically the sequence: i40e_aq_mac_address_write() i40e_aq_add_macvlan()
I dont know if it is necessary/possible/important to set up the filters sooner in the sequence- the add_macvlan needs an "seid", and I could not tell when (in the ":" code above) the right seid can be found.
Please review the RFC patch I'll be sending shortly.
--Sowmini
| |