From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A352914EC for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 21:19:33 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io0-f178.google.com with SMTP id j18so52916803ioe.2 for ; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 12:19:33 -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=1hr4fvDDEVdMLzSflxR+yZmTNE49IxN6htB4v8tNK1I=; b=mOntd4LcrzkaByBnfgOaJ88Kfknezt+iFPljt0VBjtlLnZMhYWr/YQ+VzehDoO0TP5 Jmjs6AogFKEoTc10PAhnDdiaPKIrxjbqbT4FmXYRgggmMqmVQ2annwwyvhuy2nRjQzRy /PdXQzqxw1/FI8JKAz921d4itJg3Mq7psMYvKBapYs0/TWobC0ysdydpG3uYeSzsj4x3 66vxH3qgHYSatUNwPhL5UocIZEqBig3RdZVFNQy3tEH66jlSqESOLpRIICSBA4oXn8Lc kJdcF6dvIhz097G8spHLwnyOKAMCpZhMC+wA7Q7M4P+AkDORU7L03UMUPJxtXyozgwaD THUQ== 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=1hr4fvDDEVdMLzSflxR+yZmTNE49IxN6htB4v8tNK1I=; b=Sa4GG2hUVjCP6DfaFgB5lmNkv67X7yeOiAzaj5dGNaZZOTMkC2yIifDk5VTnVeJwa4 AOVSrE2+O+SDY1JJjESYr73X+Wmoy1g6MfmaBFoeONrsKjUGxobCvKRQUgRlPWno7x6a hbIFQ9X1+D4bctJSxeqZipjvWhPaj+OqFjGrdfORoivGAk04ZKWNGs8K7reVoW0Q5LYt tb0EkvgRcRHg0cjhFg5IVdSLCOX5/WoxIwvKUPqYxDMW7vnWrnF69YDyrzaBUKrMXVh5 09niY1wS85hfJuR4yQNJ/BIc0gUznZDwgmWGY+ZVtImKiksztTT0HinLgIy/q0TzhZKz iT2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kYMntIiKlIPsbetnAcet8R8uAkePUUBi74FLedI/5Oz1PPXfT4U6mbwLu1FUeX0Rg1HVKROuTszxGgew== X-Received: by 10.107.144.9 with SMTP id s9mr4478205iod.146.1486325972774; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 12:19:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.135.161 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:19:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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 21:19:02 +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 20:19:33 -0000 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 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 t= o > 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= =99t 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 drive= r? >> >>> >> > >> > 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 wit= h >> previous DPDK versions, probably related to LSE handling, but these were= n=E2=80=99t >> properly investigated. The change in 16.11 which calls get_phy_capabilit= y >> too early in initialization stage might have alleviated the issue making= it >> easier for us to detect and confirm. >> >> Best regards, >> Christos Ricudis. >> >> >