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

Ivan Nardi nardi.ivan at gmail.com
Sun Feb 5 21:19:02 CET 2017


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 at 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 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > On 12 Jan 2017, at 21:55, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:51:58 +0000, "Rowden, Aaron F"
>> > <aaron.f.rowden at 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 at 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.
>>
>>
>


More information about the dev mailing list