***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: [ofw] Expose a vendor defined device in ibbus?

[Deepak Gupta]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Fab Tillier <ftillier at windows.microsoft.com
> wrote:

>  I had suggested allowing devices to have a 'parent' device, in order to
> let the ibbus driver create a hierarchy of devices.  This would eliminate
> the need for the ibiou driver altogether.
>

So which driver will act as function driver for IOU PDO's created.

OR there will be no PDO's for IOU's and instead ibbus will create child
PDO's representing IOC's.


Regards
Deepak


>
>
> Personally, I think it would make sense to start a new bus driver, based on
> the KMDF, to implement this.  It makes (in theory at least) handling the
> child device lists much easier.
>
>
>
> -Fab
>
>
>
> *From:* ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:
> ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] *On Behalf Of *Deepak Gupta
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:08 AM
> *To:* James Yang
> *Cc:* ofw at lists.openfabrics.org; Fab Tillier
> *Subject:* ***SPAM*** Re: [ofw] Expose a vendor defined device in ibbus?
>
>
>
> James,
>
> Although I didn't get the time to test it but I had a look at the patch,
>
> Going by a dry run on the patch it looks to me that it is for creating
> vendor defined child devices on "IBA".
>
> It looks ok to me, I will do a test on it and will reply.
>
>
> We need multiple IOC device interfaces (more than one child device mapping
> to same IOC).
> If we go on the similar lines, it seems to me that we need to put the same
> device creation logic in "ibiou" driver.
>
> But as specified above by Fab, If we are removing the IOC PnP Manager code
> from IBAL, then there will be changes
> required in "ibiou" driver because currently "ibiou" registers a PnP
> callback for IOC events.
>
> If IOC PnP manager code is removed from IBAL then we will need SA queries
> to be done specifically from "ibiou" driver.
>
> I want to implement child device creations from "ibiou" too.
> Should I remove IOC PnP callback mechanisms in "ibiou" and make it
> dependent on user configurations for creating the child devices?
>
> I am new to IBAL's code, So please let me know if I am getting anything
> wrong.
>
> Regards
> Deepak
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:35 AM, James Yang <jyang at xsigo.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ofw mailing list
> ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ofw mailing list
> ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofw/attachments/20090112/018d16d7/attachment.html>