From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF6D5424 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:56:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id c206so20943614wme.0 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 05:56:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MlNZtx/bAGCxVA/2GE6D7CJOwXgtTF1NznOOsNtO7hg=; b=n9XKYi8kO6BYL6aen/jidaezlFfG6fAkaKeIlwCu5HsSQ/etAihrjj8lVbgXBYPwa9 jqQKaSKkh5f1t4ChxH9isFBhMz0adz5KNP1s8qKo3GqZOoqQsO0pQbSm42toY0Mwlo0Y bKyNqhKnx6m5OBx+ENIOFokrchbvOx25DGTYWUVrxl0+tz/KCEQF7qU9v5XUKX0BzWEz xdKESuwr9mhWHakjfcsAC/nISJKiPfldFkGPQh5T+F/BF3GA9b+6218QDuyfPl+iZadD sH1BE+JU1d94VC2n3SNAG0l2sNgtZ/5S2LzszoYMbxGdyv6RpuQIQbfWYJyrVSMC5+MQ LeEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MlNZtx/bAGCxVA/2GE6D7CJOwXgtTF1NznOOsNtO7hg=; b=ZNetLa03S6YOQUB3PTGP9iI3E5c/RyW3S6+8RhOZGA7K1CZL7UCtPVGUfDU6Du+0xM UvDxda5mvthKgP+5zVmli7dDSe52NuKxOEzLxG0IT50k1tCMMdxXoEQNDqMH8cmpkJwM XBMD9T0wMKyzFrGsdD5FC/ApRWZM0xHqF8Fn6BZ/bEehQYdK2q07vTIpGs1O8NLgZDcL /dSuixov9ERP36xnNqO0VLyO0qwdsn/tq3YCYMMhcPICGAVuSCQXnQYdqYb29SIlzsoq X1OsrCzbD2snQOrHJPVrt/X/yCGeZIR2cW5RzIJpUWoi8zc5zMS/3DMwS+c/hg7iV+kX V1iA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXICSBztZQ0WrqiyKFsA6goWSvzqOixkhGwRU4Hpk9TSUIcbtYsusyAJJsjtu8nEgLCj X-Received: by 10.28.149.71 with SMTP id x68mr6138451wmd.105.1484229362290; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 05:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from glumotte.dev.6wind.com (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w18sm3334860wme.9.2017.01.12.05.56.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 05:56:02 -0800 (PST) From: Olivier MATZ X-Google-Original-From: Olivier MATZ Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:55:54 +0100 To: "Rowden, Aaron F" Cc: Christos Ricudis , "Zhang, Helin" , Olivier MATZ , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Wu, Jingjing" Message-ID: <20170112145554.44506d05@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> In-Reply-To: References: <2BF7FCC7-B2DF-43EE-B5F8-2F3271FB3DA1@gmail.com> <20170110162849.2256dc6e@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> <1A089981-6412-47FD-A46A-95A958D5E206@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] i40e_aq_get_phy_capabilities() fails when using SFP+ with no link X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:56:02 -0000 Hi, On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:51:58 +0000, "Rowden, Aaron F" wrote: > Hi Helin, >=20 > I'm checking on this to see why it could be failing but I don=E2=80=99t t= hink > this is one part of formal validation. Intel modules are always what > is recommended. >=20 > Aaron >=20 > > Hi Helin,=20 > >=20 > > > On 11 Jan 2017, at 09:08, Zhang, Helin > > > wrote: > > >=20 > > > Hi Aaron > > >=20 > > > Is the SFP+ (Finisar FTLX8571D3BCL) supported and validated by > > > Intel? It seems there is some PHY issue in this case. =20 > >=20 > > As the original reporter of this issue, I will test with validated > > SFP+s and will report on my testing.=20 > >=20 > > Shouldn=E2=80=99t unsupported SFP+s be blacklisted in the I40E driver?= =20 > >=20 Just to let you know that in my case the SFP are Intel ones. Maybe it's a different issue. I see there are some i40e fixes in the net-next repo, I'll give a try with this version. Regards, Olivier