From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-f49.google.com (mail-qg0-f49.google.com [209.85.192.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CF047CE for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:26:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id y89so5446424qge.2 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:26:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canonical-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mfRqr0BlZDU1XiGKc++E6L4pXlQ3S+7VuQHkFhmNdjE=; b=y96xI9rq4GiKc+DhKPptXBumZ7eZmCERpwPm5gRgU43I4HIRC2ttyQ1ZjuGwf0IvCU oSiVCY1Fmr+Oz8aMGFGMlrhJfk9jxCqMjWwTauFvBiA1wzLhckCtjnHzht7bOnCTxShn TPkVSpaTZE63xvaKrgEjzzo4lFUjuK2iyF1qyExJ3Ck6Ae4LacKGH5OTOCvdb/MC03ax msy8uqHVj8/0y4BDPLDj79nCSjFLIE0Z1ROPdswytEvF30va7uzpYK9d4+U3u3wupG0Z PZjKS0Q82TXn3KhqjOm1fiEtHAEoFI4Av9PLIKApbdPTDVqS3T4tSYS+sfUP5OfQrjjt Izmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mfRqr0BlZDU1XiGKc++E6L4pXlQ3S+7VuQHkFhmNdjE=; b=ga7WTLBtnoI6ELC91TAWP/NZ1BJ/KNTN3hdgidtsIbUBVCK0zclnZIwgzKMVDxB5kG GV/q6epuQ2ni/iuSXniJ1UEKLPPLiBYZwM2PT7WuQOpdubpKvhc6dZ6GlgYF21wRHIiF XicY9A9Fd9xIRrtAbOTbosMZ793+YuxQoI4BOG2G0WjgJkwvJ0hpK0LzNiCdj9XaMy2w eT7shAZxiDszmOT+E0gqfOXMEg6NLPCzQhR4oOPqRaBAoCCk3x3RhYRhOx4LOrtUyMp8 GZP3ajKKF5a/DHdQz5X81tlVgpK2oGJTRrMrhf/pHG36xlRjw1yScbzvU+Et4eIN7HgF 4ulw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI8YYvyDyrAPcVtJoG5r62B/rV2GrZ4ysBTxAY46BQgrcAK4UgPKRygLN3T9cStZ3e4kcoNmsxGsPXXDi7F X-Received: by 10.140.246.136 with SMTP id r130mr892663qhc.12.1459236418938; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:26:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.163.85 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:26:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Christian Ehrhardt Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:26:39 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFydGlueCAtIOOCuOOCp+ODvOODoOOCug==?= Cc: Harish Patil , "dev@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Updating bnx2x firmware X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 07:26:59 -0000 Hi Thiago and Harish, Ubuntus linux-firmware package has the latest versions of mid and end of 2015 (no newer yet as of today). And as Harish pointed out any older will likely be untested/unsupported. I like that you want to stick to the packaged content and I think your FW in the linux-firmware package is up to date as of now. The referred FW in the DPDK code is quite old (2012 according to the git). But I think just changing the defines in the dpdk code to whatever is current as of today won't solve it in the long term. Neither for the package to carry a delta just for it (and bnx2 being a disabled feature). Nor for upstream-dpdk as it will just change over time and be incorrect again. What about a patch to upstream DPDK that detects the latest available FW and creates a header with matching defines? If the dpdk project would support such an approach you could create one and bring it upstream. Then later on (next dpdk release and it being packaged) it would always detect and use the latest available - wouldn't that be what everybody would want? Christian Ehrhardt Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Martinx - =E3=82=B8=E3=82=A7=E3=83=BC=E3= =83=A0=E3=82=BA wrote: > On 24 March 2016 at 19:03, Harish Patil wrote: > > > > > > >Guys, > > > > > > Currently, the bnx2x.c driver looks for the following firmware files > > >(when > > >PMD is enabled for it): > > > > > >--- > > >$ ~/sources/dpdk/dpdk-2.2.0/drivers/net/bnx2x$ grep lib\/firmware * > > >bnx2x.c:#define FW_NAME_57711 > "/lib/firmware/bnx2x/bnx2x-e1h-7.2.51.0.fw" > > >bnx2x.c:#define FW_NAME_57810 "/lib/firmware/bnx2x/bnx2x-e2-7.2.51.0.f= w" > > >--- > > > > > > Files bnx2x-e1h-7.2.51.0.fw and bnx2x-e2-7.2.51.0.fw. > > > > > > > > > However, on Ubuntu 16.04, the package linux-firmware comes with: > > > > > >--- > > >$ dpkg -L linux-firmware | grep -i bnx2x > > >/lib/firmware/bnx2x/bnx2x-e1h-7.12.30.0.fw > > >/lib/firmware/bnx2x/bnx2x-e1-7.12.30.0.fw > > >/lib/firmware/bnx2x/bnx2x-e1-7.13.1.0.fw > > >/lib/firmware/bnx2x/bnx2x-e2-7.12.30.0.fw > > >/lib/firmware/bnx2x/bnx2x-e1h-7.13.1.0.fw > > >/lib/firmware/bnx2x/bnx2x-e2-7.13.1.0.fw > > >--- > > > > > > > > > Is it okay to just point bnx2x.c to a new version and rebuild it ? > > > > > > For example: bnx2x-e1h-7.13.1.0.fw and bnx2x-e2-7.13.1.0.fw ? > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to not manually download old firmware from Github: > > > > > > https://github.com/cernekee/linux-firmware/tree/master/bnx2x > > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > >Thiago > > > > > > > Hi Thiago > > Any reason why you don=E2=80=99t prefer to get the required FW file fro= m other > > source? > > > > You can certainly download it from: > > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/t= re > > e/bnx2x > > > > Any other FW is an untested combination. > > > > Thanks, > > Harish > > > > Hi Harish, > > Sure, I can download the firmware files, no problem... I just prefer to > stick with the packages/files from the distribution that I'm using (Ubunt= u > 16.04) but, on this case, I'll follow your recommendation. > > I don't know why Ubuntu removed the previous firmware files out from > "linux-firmware" package... > > Thanks for posting the git.kernel.org link! > > Best, > Thiago >