Page MenuHomeVyOS Platform
Create Task
Maniphest T6162

ixgbe: Add 1000BASE-BX support
Open, NormalPublic
Actions

Description

The ixgbe driver did not support the 1000BASE-BX standard so for example FS.com SFP-GE-BX 1310/1490nm 10km transceiver received an unsupported module error even with allow_unsupported_sfp enabled.

To solve this problem I created a patch that was accepted by Linux upstream (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/1b43e0d20f2d007ec4c124b0deaa848ff8d61f4a) so starting from kernel 6.9 the ixgbe driver will have 1000BASE-BX support, however VyOS uses the out of tree driver so it is necessary to backport the patch.

Details

Difficulty level
Unknown (require assessment)
Version
-
Why the issue appeared?
Will be filled on close
Is it a breaking change?
Perfectly compatible
Issue type
Improvement (missing useful functionality)

Event Timeline

ErnyTech triaged this task as Normal priority.Mar 23 2024, 12:14 PM
ErnyTech created this task.
ErnyTech created this object in space S1 VyOS Public.
Apachez added a subscriber: Apachez.Mar 23 2024, 12:20 PM

Wouldnt it be better if the same commit goes to Intel to be included with the out-of-tree driver which generally have better featuresupport than the in-tree driver which seems to be somewhat crippled?

That is that this commit goes into upstream to both Linux kernel and Intel out-of-tree driver (in case the later is missing this support)?

ErnyTech added a comment.EditedMar 23 2024, 12:34 PM
In T6162#180826, @Apachez wrote:

Wouldnt it be better if the same commit goes to Intel to be included with the out-of-tree driver which generally have better featuresupport than the in-tree driver which seems to be somewhat crippled?

That is that this commit goes into upstream to both Linux kernel and Intel out-of-tree driver (in case the later is missing this support)?

This is up to Intel as far as I know

pasik added a subscriber: pasik.Mar 23 2024, 12:35 PM
ErnyTech added a comment.Mar 23 2024, 12:35 PM

https://github.com/vyos/vyos-build/pull/540

Apachez added a comment.Mar 23 2024, 2:25 PM
In T6162#180827, @ErnyTech wrote:
In T6162#180826, @Apachez wrote:

Wouldnt it be better if the same commit goes to Intel to be included with the out-of-tree driver which generally have better featuresupport than the in-tree driver which seems to be somewhat crippled?

That is that this commit goes into upstream to both Linux kernel and Intel out-of-tree driver (in case the later is missing this support)?

This is up to Intel as far as I know

Well sure but did you file a case and send the commit to Intel aswell?

ErnyTech added a comment.Mar 23 2024, 2:32 PM
In T6162#180836, @Apachez wrote:
In T6162#180827, @ErnyTech wrote:
In T6162#180826, @Apachez wrote:

Wouldnt it be better if the same commit goes to Intel to be included with the out-of-tree driver which generally have better featuresupport than the in-tree driver which seems to be somewhat crippled?

That is that this commit goes into upstream to both Linux kernel and Intel out-of-tree driver (in case the later is missing this support)?

This is up to Intel as far as I know

Well sure but did you file a case and send the commit to Intel aswell?

Intel already received my patch via the intel-wired-lan mailing list