From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ivan Nardi Subject: Re: i40e_aq_get_phy_capabilities() fails when using SFP+ with no link Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 21:19:02 +0100 Message-ID: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Olivier MATZ , Christos Ricudis , "Rowden, Aaron F" , "Zhang, Helin" , "Wu, Jingjing" To: "dev@dpdk.org" 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) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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. >> >> >