From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC68614EC for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:30:55 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io0-f180.google.com with SMTP id v96so50359919ioi.0 for ; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 07:30:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uKnImskTxf23k/75Ad2F9Q8p+Avn78z9RZHQQuLjhlQ=; b=n+Nw3A8v4be8mbOUZPP94oVOTt73tG6/6A1zYWKkT6B/wOcWor8/KOAYyv9wiHggAz x8JXe97EnLS9HRxem7b9YC3bAoyTqvpaytYSi+aYft5mxNyKAG2jG+/pC6O04nWReP8J Ijm5bh1fyRg4NcoKkQKBQqPACCyUPLcI1cU7oDwqYbiHj3x6/z8KqTwuwNCPe/wyqVLW tYFpEcHzC+1R5bU+ZjIPyzc06FkNcL7JbYs1DoxoQPgDy+3KEN1OtWkAA4OIJnFyg5sZ DH7yPU5pPoueZux816X8fISCfQ8E8lJPdF908tjKs/Sz9wUUMNZu/SlfkVwWfN19HSmF I1IA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uKnImskTxf23k/75Ad2F9Q8p+Avn78z9RZHQQuLjhlQ=; b=TBASwDcb3BOZv81ZMyO29HogGPkvlAj5fouJ89FNkx2ePi3NhlGVe1RcFHau7BFl78 vyvTCZz85j/ExhX+vS6J2Xt+Z+PdaX4xb7YzynFmIDDdEk4HlM63miWNvCr2a64q8t1B AiWNRRMk8hgNZMKJ22e/Nsaz6i0SmuFsXWtcxQcior7PUfd1PjDJ54X8TYxX9/JH9eIG CICwTAGt0RNtWgMV4G6IVuXh6rBhB+fFJpnrBYkEiEl9BDucNWmB3Qq/9ZeqYHl/GRfW WGb7k3fvgZXwEi2wOhRgzliPT1JWZoa8dIaLWnXvDWsPBXB8RnYnrlncLzP6XoEHOIWL RoNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nnDEWNe8S253ipYaBwRSeKbwLDK2daS8ksuPYOSg1ewCnANnkkmF3irIF1wDseXfdPa9GTkgxmQQwRqQ== X-Received: by 10.107.144.9 with SMTP id s9mr3868510iod.146.1486308654843; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 07:30:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.135.161 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 07:30:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <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> <7F35F791-2981-47EF-A0B0-3DE4D6E3CF02@gmail.com> From: Ivan Nardi Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:30:24 +0100 Message-ID: To: "dev@dpdk.org" Cc: Olivier MATZ , Christos Ricudis , "Rowden, Aaron F" , "Zhang, Helin" , "Wu, Jingjing" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 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: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 15:30:55 -0000 Hi guys any updates on this issue? We are facing a very similar problem. We have a server with 4 nics X710 4*10Gbit and the dpdk randomly failed to start with the error: PMD: eth_i40e_dev_init(): FW 4.40 API 1.4 NVM 04.05.03 eetrack 80001cd8 PMD: eth_i40e_dev_init(): Failed to sync phy type: -95 It happens randomly (sometimes it works properly, sometimes not), the "failed" port index is random too and it happens whether the fibers have been connected or not. We are using dpdk 16.11. Any help would be appreciated Thanks in advance Ivan On 18 January 2017 at 11:15, Christos Ricudis wrote: > Hi, > > > On 12 Jan 2017, at 21:55, Olivier MATZ wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:51:58 +0000, "Rowden, Aaron F" > > wrote: > >> Hi Helin, > >> > >> I'm checking on this to see why it could be failing but I don=E2=80=99= t think > >> this is one part of formal validation. Intel modules are always what > >> is recommended. > >> > >> Aaron > >> > >>> Hi Helin, > >>> > >>>> On 11 Jan 2017, at 09:08, Zhang, Helin > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Aaron > >>>> > >>>> Is the SFP+ (Finisar FTLX8571D3BCL) supported and validated by > >>>> Intel? It seems there is some PHY issue in this case. > >>> > >>> As the original reporter of this issue, I will test with validated > >>> SFP+s and will report on my testing. > >>> > >>> Shouldn=E2=80=99t unsupported SFP+s be blacklisted in the I40E driver= ? > >>> > > > > 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 > > After further testing, I can confirm that this issue persists with > supported Intel SFPs (Intel FTLX8571D3BCV-IT). > > 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. > > Best regards, > Christos Ricudis. > >