On 5/16/19, 3:02 PM, "Florian Fainelli" <f.faine...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/16/19 12:55 PM, Nikunj Kela (nkela) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/16/19, 12:35 PM, "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com> 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-exter...@cisco.com
>> >> Signed-off-by: Nikunj Kela <nk...@cisco.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> 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?
>--
>Florian
My colleagues wanted me to upstream so if there is anyone else in the same
situations, maybe there is a better solution.
