From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0095.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.95]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F768E8D for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:33:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SN2PR0601MB1007.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.59.154) by SN2PR0601MB1006.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.59.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.300.14; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:33:28 +0000 Received: from SN2PR0601MB1007.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.59.154]) by SN2PR0601MB1007.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.59.154]) with mapi id 15.01.0300.010; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:33:27 +0000 From: Alex Forster To: Alexander Duyck Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers Thread-Index: AQHRBdurwfMhGdCgNkG1Uobt5eIVL55pgz0AgABeJgCAAV67gIABcQEA//+9xYA= Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:33:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <561D6AD2.9000308@gmail.com> <561FC694.1070601@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <561FC694.1070601@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=alex@alexforster.com; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [173.161.199.53] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN2PR0601MB1006; 5:zi9A+n7WKJpuL2h56bY7KCCftq1dFtUzIXoyFR92ISrWnkrrOdCk/bqdEgBile3h28EX3+IHpoWvAYdOJy8MsboJO1qwifiWXit8otbXELUgaHHj0ida60B3dI4TdAckIT5VCf5p/yEYiDEB4BHToA==; 24:E7wReAJgbuRifNHRL84Wbmc0vVAGg7x6ZGDnQ9mD5VsR2pZyN9IbiJ/FDSLIwWF6P03sL4CMajRJUqTWPPhQYxvzCTMH0KY1rYFCzK0PbwY=; 20:CkQu7ntQh0na93Lt5dJIL3/xo/aiyQW0VHCHbKw5U47YOIWzFDEBoRgWN4ByHtDFClc81eiVXPqcBEJFUPaSnA== x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:SN2PR0601MB1006; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(202767206196957); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(520078)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001); SRVR:SN2PR0601MB1006; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN2PR0601MB1006; x-forefront-prvs: 0730093765 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(189002)(24454002)(479174004)(377454003)(199003)(77096005)(5001960100002)(2950100001)(102836002)(2900100001)(92566002)(5008740100001)(93886004)(66066001)(110136002)(46102003)(189998001)(40100003)(122556002)(36756003)(64706001)(105586002)(5002640100001)(10400500002)(5004730100002)(106356001)(81156007)(76176999)(97736004)(50986999)(19580395003)(54356999)(106116001)(5007970100001)(19580405001)(101416001)(87936001)(86362001)(99286002)(94096001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN2PR0601MB1006; H:SN2PR0601MB1007.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: alexforster.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: alexforster.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Oct 2015 15:33:27.6316 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 8fb42f39-75d5-4c92-b720-fa47f1ea1e7a X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN2PR0601MB1006 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 15:33:31 -0000 On 10/15/15, 11:30 AM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: >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=3D1,1", 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 > Alex Forster