From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961B8C04AAF for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 01:48:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5DD20848 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 01:48:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="UEhjmF6e" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727300AbfEQBsu (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 May 2019 21:48:50 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f195.google.com ([209.85.210.195]:45910 "EHLO mail-pf1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725933AbfEQBsu (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 May 2019 21:48:50 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f195.google.com with SMTP id s11so2791771pfm.12; Thu, 16 May 2019 18:48:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:openpgp:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wuDXc+IXQGay7e3fD99hwMFa7JXXaUv+8T7wwPWp5iw=; b=UEhjmF6eiDf58glo5/r876Y/ZolFULRbkk4VMEerl0DrtWonfVbR+RTc96v+okNHcj 7wamKkA+9HKjOp+wrsYIJz2wySZqlYdMp+5HDJcjl36bwS02ua8+99qAb1SgQ+ZgatTm sQOEdsXswqGj8Fpub9rZdEo9cGvJZ4tucFK3KsMgQe7ABts5tjh73KpInbj0/0SzlCfp qhrmPOshGBnOHTHaCYBmcOF3MW+pfEIMZsy9vBqi6C0mXow/FgJfAcVd7ZMvtQdExY+h osqj9vqt/LjXLi6CuAy/oszppueVG5zZreArQcxPZQcc57UPrRxxmOTya6YaQn75cWAL QZ4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:openpgp:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wuDXc+IXQGay7e3fD99hwMFa7JXXaUv+8T7wwPWp5iw=; b=DKO8ZE7SkoX3DLz08elZ7qsCJ9HNJxJkv1jQucm8O6BMEweZ1S8okDXWXRIzaMaO1J xM/O4/FAHxtBAbHjF9rwvsKGJ2eZu86DONxVqW403uziIVyE+kFrjeKt+4fzU6Rq6JYi 8UHXqS1BuybcGb/uyLu0BuZ2rVbAKTfqnv2uUsmXBdZzRNOlxE+x7woKF/yk2jDhwJOl FyzwxAPHkPar9Dr/yD9MXgzUrOYIMC/lO82Xbxw/OakIvfUyNr+n7M+GpISvJ50+7+W3 CsTckhurVsyVwHvpTgRs/Ejh5f3olaEYXNeSXN+wDqHVvKBWjLNf8bTGEhxPbB4uBPMK a2rw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVGgkft8H3q7TSJtDGL6V+vaajKBUI8/5liAUnJpOO/7sqPnG3m wso9SOh/KNoh0gXCmCHFVCxPre6B X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzemz/xV7mTxS06IPnyybDyeoue+wEcoMxhSLWRmNonKjhneN4QQeH2TlSUMZp4+19UN8DTrg== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8186:: with SMTP id g6mr58368552pfi.126.1558057728807; Thu, 16 May 2019 18:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.230.28.107] ([192.19.223.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j19sm8403874pfr.155.2019.05.16.18.48.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 May 2019 18:48:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] igb: add parameter to ignore nvm checksum validation To: Daniel Walker Cc: "Nikunj Kela (nkela)" , "jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com" , "xe-linux-external(mailer list)" , "David S. Miller" , "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <1557357269-9498-1-git-send-email-nkela@cisco.com> <9be117dc6e818ab83376cd8e0f79dbfaaf193aa9.camel@intel.com> <76B41175-0CEE-466C-91BF-89A1CA857061@cisco.com> <4469196a-0705-5459-8aca-3f08e9889d61@gmail.com> <20190517010330.2wynopuhsqycqzuq@zorba> From: Florian Fainelli Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 18:48:43 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190517010330.2wynopuhsqycqzuq@zorba> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/16/2019 6:03 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 03:02:18PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> On 5/16/19 12:55 PM, Nikunj Kela (nkela) wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 5/16/19, 12:35 PM, "Jeff Kirsher" wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 23:14 +0000, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>> >> Some of the broken NICs don't have EEPROM programmed correctly. It >>> >> results >>> >> in probe to fail. This change adds a module parameter that can be >>> >> used to >>> >> ignore nvm checksum validation. >>> >> >>> >> Cc: xe-linux-external@cisco.com >>> >> Signed-off-by: Nikunj Kela >>> >> --- >>> >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 28 >>> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>> >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> >NAK for two reasons. First, module parameters are not desirable >>> >because their individual to one driver and a global solution should be >>> >found so that all networking device drivers can use the solution. This >>> >will keep the interface to change/setup/modify networking drivers >>> >consistent for all drivers. >>> >>> >>> >Second and more importantly, if your NIC is broken, fix it. Do not try >>> >and create a software workaround so that you can continue to use a >>> >broken NIC. There are methods/tools available to properly reprogram >>> >the EEPROM on a NIC, which is the right solution for your issue. >>> >>> I am proposing this as a debug parameter. Obviously, we need to fix EEPROM but this helps us continuing the development while manufacturing fixes NIC. >> >> Then why even bother with sending this upstream? > > It seems rather drastic to disable the entire driver because the checksum > doesn't match. It really should be a warning, even a big warning, to let people > know something is wrong, but disabling the whole driver doesn't make sense. You could generate a random Ethernet MAC address if you don't have a valid one, a lot of drivers do that, and that's a fairly reasonable behavior. At some point in your product development someone will certainly verify that the provisioned MAC address matches the network interface's MAC address. -- Florian