[ofw] Expose a vendor defined device in ibbus?

[James Yang]

Please use this new patch which fixed a few compile errors in free
build.

 

Thanks,

James

 

 

________________________________

From: ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org
[mailto:ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of James Yang
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:11 PM
To: Deepak Gupta; Fab Tillier
Cc: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: RE: [ofw] Expose a vendor defined device in ibbus?

 

Hi,

 

Please review the patch to create user defined devices by reading from
registry. By default there is only one IpoIB device enabled in
mlx4_hca.inx file. This patch will only work for ConnectX.

 

The paritition key if set to default to FFFF, I didn't test on other
value. And the Ioctl part to add partition key may also need to be
verified.

 

Thanks,

James

 

 

________________________________

From: mailmeatdkg at gmail.com [mailto:mailmeatdkg at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Deepak Gupta
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:51 PM
To: Fab Tillier
Cc: Tzachi Dar; James Yang; ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [ofw] Expose a vendor defined device in ibbus?

 

Have a gr8 New Year to all the members!!!.

Do you we any updates on "vendor defined device in ibbus"?

I wanted to create multiple vnic interfaces irrespective of number of
reachable IOCs.

Currently I am creating vnic child devices on "root" bus.
Inside VNIC driver, I am looking for arrival GUID_IB_AL_INTERFACE and
hence contacting the IBAL.
But since vnic devices are root enumerated, VNIC driver gets loaded very
earlier in boot phase (Before "Extended Base" group to which IB Stack
drivers belong) and hence VNIC device interfaces are not getting
initialized properly.

If we are providing a vendor defined device functionality in ibbus in
near future, then it would be worth for me to wait for it.

Can any one please comment on this.

Regards
Deepak



On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Deepak Gupta <deepak.gupta at qlogic.com>
wrote:

All,

I came across one more question in my mind which are I think is not
clear to me after reading the whole thread.

In new design being discussed:- 
Are we making sure that we can have more than one child devices
configured for the same IOC.
Currently, there is one child device created per IOC discovered.

Having more than one child device configured for same IOC is a
requirement if a user wants two different ULP interfaces to be created
on host side.
Consider a case in which a host is connected to a single IOC and IOC is
connected to a ethernet network via switch.
If there are two different IP subnets then there is a requirement of two
different Ethernet interfaces on the host side too.

Please let me know if you need more clarification of my question.

Regards
Deepak

 

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Deepak Gupta <deepak.gupta at qlogic.com>
wrote:

Please see below.

Regards
Deepak

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Fab Tillier <
ftillier at windows.microsoft.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Fab Tillier
> <ftillier at windows.microsoft.com> wrote:

>> Are there other properties that I have missed that are needed?
>
> We need a way in which devices created should be configured for
> failovers ( ULPs like VNIC, SRP need more configurable failovers).
> Looking at IBAL's code it create the devices based on the reachable
> IOC's and thus failover's are possible across the HCA/ports and not
> across two different IOCs.
> Users can have a case in which two different IOCs connected to same
> physical network/storage (redundancy is provided for high
availability)
> and want a failover across the IOCs.

This would be done via LBFO for network devices, and MPIO for storage
devices.  I think having the bus driver report a single IOC that really
maps to two IOCs on the fabric is asking for management problems.
Further, LBFO/MPIO can provide failover between different device types,
so the failover devices don't have to be identical HW.


I don't know about how MPIO works. But for LBFO,  BundleID param will
have to be included in extended params then so that user gets the
freedom of bundling  different failover configurations.
 

	
	
	-Fab

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofw/attachments/20090107/16c33e51/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: user_devices_1.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 24990 bytes
Desc: user_devices_1.patch
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofw/attachments/20090107/16c33e51/attachment.obj>