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.
