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-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Nardi
> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 4:19 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Olivier MATZ <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; Christos Ricudis
> <ricudis.chris...@gmail.com>; Rowden, Aaron F
> <aaron.f.row...@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zh...@intel.com>; Wu,
> Jingjing <jingjing...@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.i...@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.chris...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> > On 12 Jan 2017, at 21:55, Olivier MATZ <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:51:58 +0000, "Rowden, Aaron F"
> >> > <aaron.f.row...@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.zh...@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.
> >>
> >>
> >
