Re: [dpdk-dev] i40e_aq_get_phy_capabilities() fails when using SFP+ with no link

[Ivan Nardi <nardi.ivan@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the suggestions!
I'll try them and I will report back the results in the next days.
Regards
Ivan

On 6 February 2017 at 02:04, Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Ivan:
>
>         I'm looking at this issue, but I can't repeat it on my environment both with X710x4 and XL710x1
>         Not sure if you could try below things to help narrow down this issue.
>
>         1) move i40e_dev_sync_phy_type call after i40e_set_fc call, to see if the problem still exist, since without i40e_dev_sync_phy_type, i40e_set_fc is the first place i40e_aq_get_phy_capabilities get called and we didn't see this issue before 16.11.
>
>         2) if above change works, at least we have a work around, if above still fail, please modify the parameter of i40e_aq_get_phy_capabilities in i40e_dev_sync_phy_type as below and check result.
>         - status = i40e_aq_get_phy_capabilities(hw, false, true, &phy_ab,
>         -                                     NULL);
>         + status = i40e_aq_get_phy_capabilities(hw, false, false, &phy_ab,
>         +                                             NULL);
>
>         Thank you!
>
> Regards
> Qi
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Nardi
>> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 4:19 AM
>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>; Christos Ricudis
>> <ricudis.christos@gmail.com>; Rowden, Aaron F
>> <aaron.f.rowden@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>; Wu,
>> Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] i40e_aq_get_phy_capabilities() fails when using SFP+
>> with no link
>>
>> HI
>> same issue with 17.02-rc2
>> It seems to me the problem I am facing is similar to the ones reported in
>> these mails; if not, I apologize to have used this thread
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:30, Ivan Nardi <nardi.ivan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>> > <ricudis.christos@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> > On 12 Jan 2017, at 21:55, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:51:58 +0000, "Rowden, Aaron F"
>> >> > <aaron.f.rowden@intel.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Helin,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm checking on this to see why it could be failing but I don’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 <helin.zhang@intel.com>
>> >> >>>> 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’t 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’t 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >