From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f53.google.com (mail-lf0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDA468CA for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:52:48 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lf0-f53.google.com with SMTP id v186so38010701lfa.1 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:52:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Yz38VbPHjblQsHKGqZXtyHWvd67EQ7MEsgKbla1nw1A=; b=1ArGfpPVTOhN3gDxoW0FRsws+3cSk/NPi7aQ6kAM7CHsxWCIItDIRls1fAvrN/Je1X w42YfEN2VuOKf2pKaEf0FuaMUIq07Vb5od5Myf50+c0f6gcho1rtiV18hkQG7AKCh1EY AyhEr4qhqPNsSiaV97aQ2aggYbNHhPWzQl4lx9XDcYfzFiAxIkJZFWhBHrtWlhQzQjAb y8QszcGHQug1oBlQr5JZH3sjTsYCP4Z0zfCBMT7FeUf39WYWai0vfsD4U1pRWaS7aZkP ntIw7onAr6Fc2AMGwkVlE1jgvwwtg4Cv+rTvX/q2ivlkzWQyFOShUyjN7IpUwQnpC1+z kZTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Yz38VbPHjblQsHKGqZXtyHWvd67EQ7MEsgKbla1nw1A=; b=pOqB5HNPbl2jqIT79QCqNt8UlC7Kmrrn1sxNuqHzrwdl351DeKe3TKPZzwFKBvV8P8 kvxYdm1OGBKYVP9ZxKq+U1UMywJ/wwNkrVkzljqsj/YUPen1ymJViQQAxCA2XbVtJiUa J4Gkq7joIYJYfSLXLODO7DbLDuJtOxRAuKlK9i1dQeUBgR4am4adlzHS2OoaHEABFanv g6ylMJ1JxxFqQG022JvMpQpgKMHCQXydHnBDJyq8ynzglB1e6lCuo9MsDBNwPGmaJzxS /foE3j3fkFbnFIBMVDYXVI3K0c/zKcCDCKsNEdeX0r3FMy7/MPK0XUuWgPpt5o2InSl3 APxg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJRX+IODqR7N370ldi11lGGKfuOgsVTbLOP0o4i70qDMbO0q2U1j8pA2pYnnLhDHQs7 X-Received: by 10.46.75.1 with SMTP id y1mr299lja.65.1484313899582; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from platinum (2a01cb0c03c651000226b0fffeed02fc.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb0c:3c6:5100:226:b0ff:feed:2fc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v17sm3886481lja.43.2017.01.13.05.24.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:24:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:24:55 +0100 From: Olivier Matz To: Olivier MATZ Cc: "Rowden, Aaron F" , Christos Ricudis , "Zhang, Helin" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Wu, Jingjing" Message-ID: <20170113142455.05ac6c06@platinum> In-Reply-To: <20170112145554.44506d05@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> References: <2BF7FCC7-B2DF-43EE-B5F8-2F3271FB3DA1@gmail.com> <20170110162849.2256dc6e@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> <1A089981-6412-47FD-A46A-95A958D5E206@gmail.com> <20170112145554.44506d05@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; 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: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:52:49 -0000 Hi, On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:55:54 +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote: > Hi, >=20 > 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 > > think 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 >=20 > Just to let you know that in my case the SFP are Intel ones. > Maybe it's a different issue. >=20 > I see there are some i40e fixes in the net-next repo, I'll give a try > with this version. The issue still exists in net-next. I did a git bissect, and the commit that introduces the issue is: f4668a33efe5 ("net/i40e: fix link status change interrupt") [1] If I revert it (with some conflicts), the problem I described in [2] disappear. Helin, Jinging, do you know what would be the consequences of reverting this patch? Christos, I don't know if it also helps for yor issue. If no, sorry for having squatted your topic, the symptoms looked quite similar at first glance. Thanks, Olivier [1] http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=3Df4668a33efe5 [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054401.html