[ofw] Expose a vendor defined device in ibbus?

[Leonid Keller]

After first look: why did you put the list of the created devices into
Globals (and not, say, FDO) ?
How it will work for multi-home machine ? (several HCA cards)
Would anybode like to check it for various partition keys ?


________________________________

	From: ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org
[mailto:ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of James Yang
	Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:11 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/20090118/9434c1b0/attachment.html>