From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com (mail-pf0-f195.google.com [209.85.192.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C852AF955 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:15:34 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pf0-f195.google.com with SMTP id f144so855693pfa.2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 02:15:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=v71N8lXY2J6Q9hTQIAWxzwJ/AWfEc1oDlLApzhmMLas=; b=mJwO/+dQdxGy/FGLrhr0pjAJzxDXFObTYRlpLUh6zTXnCkp3jQ7RH1sU0P8p5LQqco 7lMIVJJA88aTg/dHfVUQGadSoeR2xcNIn/iuZ/MK536pDPAKfhksto5J8LtVyaN8oiS1 ErB60r8NAuQXJ0ewdfglJYGusyYXSHy6uSs8w2oKF5ErPzagDLEKo0pfAHbLz2IkaT1Y TQSP22i6zlN0Zm6NOQfh2koQ/NlbdxfqGGvgNc/Tps3Lam7seR8mQsNCa7KjlVsNCYS5 IOJ2N/0tt5JoFVXvJMvRXNMXITyhXp7CYY6wSfsDLldoesD9B4/ScOCeSCsA6bDg5GyS 47OA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=v71N8lXY2J6Q9hTQIAWxzwJ/AWfEc1oDlLApzhmMLas=; b=t97/KehRHdSdK6z/cEnBJlt/+187L1EW0zX8dPJGG1eQS2JfbtUBMZMcX+ymPSQ3Us zkPghhe/Ven5KXdRDhAfATcd4u4mVRlTUlBp3BPxmK1Ham1Vdc822WTHMQ8KwZcE9qCB 0/U0NAFHYwZTp3zC3y4VHv7U5hRrIS3of0tq7ZfK2zL2WOfmMhJ7l+xlOQxs8QVyHH/V lJp8aod5bw1KzZR4O4RZKyMLXI5QevnmmVo+GRGeeH0bwIlt0xT219/qGfAtlS8PTz9N PWE+y0snEgLg+EYh9PJ3sncF4Q0HYP1GKkLHbLLkWbA9YC7O+bvhkJzTRWs61Z4IUMIS /ejg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKZXZlWdYpBoU12jP0t/SIsRYovQJ9mSUBufUGZ0Drx4jq8TZPcvC0FKlP7ObX3PA== X-Received: by 10.99.62.73 with SMTP id l70mr2950218pga.97.1484734534025; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 02:15:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ricudismac.niometrics.com ([66.96.194.217]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v186sm25490978pgv.44.2017.01.18.02.15.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 02:15:33 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) From: Christos Ricudis In-Reply-To: <20170112145554.44506d05@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:15:29 +0800 Cc: "Rowden, Aaron F" , "Zhang, Helin" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Wu, Jingjing" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7F35F791-2981-47EF-A0B0-3DE4D6E3CF02@gmail.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> To: Olivier MATZ X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:15:35 -0000 Hi,=20 > On 12 Jan 2017, at 21:55, Olivier MATZ wrote: >=20 > 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. >=20 > Regards, > Olivier After further testing, I can confirm that this issue persists with = supported Intel SFPs (Intel FTLX8571D3BCV-IT).=20 As for the changeset introducing this issue - we had failure reports = with previous DPDK versions, probably related to LSE handling, but these = weren=E2=80=99t properly investigated. The change in 16.11 which calls = get_phy_capability too early in initialization stage might have = alleviated the issue making it easier for us to detect and confirm.=20 Best regards,=20 Christos Ricudis.=20