From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com [209.85.220.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4CA91B6 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:30:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: by pabur7 with SMTP id ur7so8500472pab.2 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:30:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DdSgM7lD+O8G0o6V+eAKiqi4EbK2mhOWIdvx6O0raY8=; b=o2ghnobsQNlE0oAd2GKPoLcHKg4Azi5RYZj5qEw8chpKaU0Epk1/jjNp012KMqn86K KHkitIAfDIdSjZe7BOe6nyuGaudEnMkD0mEAGZlDkGQwLRcfclYaVpaO4LTxTGZ5AJ2X 5oP51li/JtfzdnuLXMG49tL+uTZ1XHdjcwX8zrkSEPGJli/oSNwszVutRF7fydTXTaNJ l8ofAtLev3SR85kuG/Mi77eB3EYHzTXYM2JMGLisCewRMFDc5lquAjvAk9K/q5iuzJh2 LumcUcSs7so2iF/qN+Agv29NK47ghCESxpdsSlHplbl9U3631pCV6QL8l13UIEu54Pim rarw== X-Received: by 10.66.102.65 with SMTP id fm1mr10662226pab.12.1444923029744; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.188] (static-50-53-21-5.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.53.21.5]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id rl17sm16200824pab.2.2015.10.15.08.30.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:30:29 -0700 (PDT) To: Alex Forster References: <561D6AD2.9000308@gmail.com> From: Alexander Duyck Message-ID: <561FC694.1070601@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:30:28 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:30:30 -0000 On 10/15/2015 07:46 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > On 10/13/15, 4:34 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: > >> If you are using Intel's out-of-tree ixgbe driver I believe the module >> parameters are comma separated with one index per port. So if you have >> two ports you should be passing "allow_unsupported_sfp=1,1", and for 4 >> you would need four '1's. > > This seemed very promising. I compiled and installed the out of tree ixgbe > driver and set the option in /etc/modprobe.d/ixgbe.conf. dmesg shows all > eight "allow_unsupported_sfp enabled" messages but the last four ports > still error out with the unsupported SFP message when running the tests. > > Before I start arbitrarily trying to patch out parts of the SFP > verification code in ixgbe, are there any other tips I should know? Can you send me the command you used to load the module, and the exact number of ixgbe ports you have in the system? With that I could then verify that the command was entered correctly as it is possible there could still be an issue in the way the command was entered. One other possibility is that when the driver loads each load counts as an instance in the module parameter array. So if for example you unbind the driver on one port and then later rebind it you will have consumed one of the values in the array. Do it enough times and you exceed the bounds of the array as you entered it and it will simply use the default value of 0. Also the output of "ethtool -i " would be useful to verify that you have the out-of-tree driver loaded and not the in kernel. - Alex