SUMMARY: Sun Fire V480 and ce.conf for Onboard Ethernet Interfaces

I received no replies to my query, but the following did the trick.

# vi   /platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/ce.conf
# cat /platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/ce.conf
name="pci108e,abba" parent="/pci@9,700000" unit-address="2"
adv_autoneg_cap=0 adv_10hdx_cap=0 adv_10fdx_cap=0 adv_100hdx_cap=0
adv_100fdx_cap=1 adv_1000hdx_cap=0 adv_1000fdx_cap=0 adv_100T4_cap=0;
#

Note that the file contains only one line.

With the above ce.conf file, ce0 (the bottom-most interface on my V480)
comes up FDX/100 with autonegotiation disabled.

The problem was in the documentation (cited below, in the original query).
The parent parameter needed a '/' and the adv parameters needed underscores
rather than hyphens.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Anta" <lanta@ryerson.ca>
To: <sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 11:48 AM
Subject: Sun Fire V480 and ce.conf for Onboard Ethernet Interfaces


> I guess I need a "Configuring the ce Device Driver for Complete Dolts"
> manual.
>
> Would someone please toss me a frickin bone here about how to configure
the
> two onboard ethernet interfaces that are integrated into a V480 (no
ethernet
> adapter is installed, just the RSC adapter in the RSC slot, which I'm not
> concerned with at this point).
>
> Solaris 8 (7/03)
> OBP 4.10.7 2003/06/11 07:03
> Patch 111883-14 is on
>
>
> /: grep ce /etc/driver_aliases
> usb_mid "usb,device"
> ce "pci108e,abba"
> ce "pci100b,35"
> pcelx "pccard101,589"
> pcelx "pccard101,562,0"
>
> /: grep ce /etc/path_to_inst
> "/pci@9,700000/network@2" 0 "ce"
> "/pci@9,600000/network@1" 1 "ce"
>
> /: cat  /platform/sun4u/kernel/drv/ce.conf
> # Following is all on one line:
> adv-autoneg-cap=0 adv-10hdx-cap=0 adv-10fdx-cap=0 adv-100hdx-cap=0
> adv-100fdx-cap=1 adv-1000hdx-cap=0 adv-1000fdx-cap=0 adv-100T4-cap=0;
>
> This much works like a charm, disabling autonegotiation and forcing 100
FDX.
>
> The problems start when I try to configure just ce0, rather than all ce's.
> Ie. when I start using name=, parent=, and unit-address= parameters.
>
> The Product Notes for the V480 (816-0905-14, p.9) recommend reading the
> GigaSwift Ethernet Adapter Installation and User's Guide (816-1702-11) for
> information on configuring the ONBOARD network interfaces, ie. for details
> of ce.conf (even though I have no such adapter).  Fine.  Over to
> 816-1702-11.  The section "Setting Parameters Using the ce.conf File"
(pages
> 51-53) is an evil joke that give tantalizing clues about what might work.
> The one example given (that uses the name=, parent=, and unit-address=
> parameters) doesn't use the previous portions of that section in which the
> terms name, parent, and unit address are illucidated.  (Great time to
switch
> from the general to the specific, ughh.)
>
> My first guess was that the name is pci108e,abba.  When that didn't seem
to
> work I remembered that 816-1702-11 was about GigaSwift adapters.  Maybe I
> need pci100b,35 instead.  No luck.  But is it because I've got the
> unit-address wrong?  I'd been specifying "2" (because I'm trying to get
ce0
> to specify ce0).  "2" seems to be right according to 816-1702-11, but
> "docs.sun.com's 'Solaris 8 HW 7/03 on Sun Hardware Collection >> Platform
> Notes: Sun GigaSwift Ethernet Device Driver >> Configuring Driver
Parameters
> >> Setting ce Driver Parameters'" says no, the unit address would be "9,7"
> in my case.  Hmm.
>
> Then there is the issue of the parent.  Page 52 of 816-1702-11 says the
> parent in my case would be pci@9 while page 53 implies it would be
> pci@9,70000 in my case.
>
> I've tried many combinations of name/parent/unit-address and my ce0 comes
up
> HDX.  When I leave out name/parent/unit-address (leaving just the ce.conf
> file shown above), ce0 comes up FDX the way I want.
>
> I have considered the ndd approach but prefer to have a working ce.conf
file
> since ndd commands for the ce driver in rcX.d scripts is not supported by
> Sun (816-1702-11, page 51); nor are 'set' commands supported in
/etc/system
> (816-0905-14, page 9).
>
> Is Sun just trying to sell more education to complement their poor
technical
> writing or am I just completely clueless?  (Rhetorical question; please
> don't answer.)  Thanks!
> _______________________________________________
> sunmanagers mailing list
> sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
> http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers