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. >> >> >
