[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-19 Thread Alexander Duyck
On 10/18/2015 06:06 PM, Alex Forster wrote: > On 10/15/15, 3:53 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: > > It looks like you are probably seeing interfaces be unbound and then rebound. As such you are likely pushing things outside of the array boundary. One solution might just be to at more

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-19 Thread Alex Forster
On 10/15/15, 3:53 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: >>> It looks like you are probably seeing interfaces be unbound and then >>> rebound. As such you are likely pushing things outside of the array >>> boundary. One solution might just be to at more ",1"s if you are only >>> going to be doing this k

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-15 Thread Alex Forster
On 10/15/15, 2:00 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: > >Your changes are a bit over-kill and actually take things in the wrong >direction. By commenting out the whole allow_unsupported_sfp block you >are disabling it by default. Remember the module parameter allows it, >by removing it there is no way

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-15 Thread Alex Forster
On 10/15/15, 12:17 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: >On 10/15/2015 08:43 AM, Alex Forster wrote: >> On 10/15/15, 11:30 AM, "Alexander Duyck" >>wrote: >> >>> On 10/15/2015 07:46 AM, Alex Forster wrote: On 10/13/15, 4:34 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: > If you are using Intel's out-

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-15 Thread Alex Forster
On 10/15/15, 11:30 AM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: >On 10/15/2015 07:46 AM, Alex Forster wrote: >> On 10/13/15, 4:34 PM, "Alexander Duyck" >>wrote: >> >>> If you are using Intel's out-of-tree ixgbe driver I believe the module >>> parameters are comma separated with one index per port. So if you ha

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-15 Thread Alex Forster
On 10/15/15, 11:30 AM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: >On 10/15/2015 07:46 AM, Alex Forster wrote: >> On 10/13/15, 4:34 PM, "Alexander Duyck" >>wrote: >> >>> If you are using Intel's out-of-tree ixgbe driver I believe the module >>> parameters are comma separated with one index per port. So if you h

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-15 Thread Alex Forster
On 10/13/15, 4:34 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: >If you are using Intel's out-of-tree ixgbe driver I believe the module >parameters are comma separated with one index per port. So if you have >two ports you should be passing "allow_unsupported_sfp=1,1", and for 4 >you would need four '1's. This

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-15 Thread Alexander Duyck
On 10/15/2015 10:13 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > On 10/15/15, 12:17 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: > > >> On 10/15/2015 08:43 AM, Alex Forster wrote: >>> On 10/15/15, 11:30 AM, "Alexander Duyck" >>> wrote: >>> On 10/15/2015 07:46 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > On 10/13/15, 4:34 PM, "Alexander Duyc

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-15 Thread Alexander Duyck
On 10/15/2015 10:13 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > On 10/15/15, 12:17 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: > > >> On 10/15/2015 08:43 AM, Alex Forster wrote: >>> On 10/15/15, 11:30 AM, "Alexander Duyck" >>> wrote: >>> On 10/15/2015 07:46 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > On 10/13/15, 4:34 PM, "Alexander Duyc

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-15 Thread Alexander Duyck
On 10/15/2015 08:43 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > On 10/15/15, 11:30 AM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: > >> On 10/15/2015 07:46 AM, Alex Forster wrote: >>> On 10/13/15, 4:34 PM, "Alexander Duyck" >>> wrote: >>> If you are using Intel's out-of-tree ixgbe driver I believe the module parameters are

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-15 Thread Alexander Duyck
On 10/15/2015 07:46 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > On 10/13/15, 4:34 PM, "Alexander Duyck" wrote: > >> If you are using Intel's out-of-tree ixgbe driver I believe the module >> parameters are comma separated with one index per port. So if you have >> two ports you should be passing "allow_unsupported_

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-13 Thread Alex Forster
I believe I've discovered my problem: https://gist.github.com/AlexForster/0fb4699bcdf196cf5462 As mentioned previously, I have two X520-Q1 cards installed. It appears that initialization of the first card obeys allow_unsupported_sfp=1, but initialization of the second card does not. Is this a

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-13 Thread Alex Forster
Hi everybody, apologies for coming to this list with a tech support question. I'm completely stumped about using non-Intel transceivers with DPDK. testpmd is bailing here: PMD: eth_ixgbe_dev_init(): Unsupported SFP+ Module / PMD: eth_ixgbe_dev_init(): Hardware Initialization Failure: -19 My box

[dpdk-dev] Question about unsupported transceivers

2015-10-13 Thread Alexander Duyck
On 10/13/2015 11:57 AM, Alex Forster wrote: > I believe I've discovered my problem: > https://gist.github.com/AlexForster/0fb4699bcdf196cf5462 > > As mentioned previously, I have two X520-Q1 cards installed. It appears that > initialization of the first card obeys allow_unsupported_sfp=1, but >