[dpdk-dev] 82599ES NIC support
hyunseok at ieee.org
Mon Mar 31 20:16:16 CEST 2014
> Can you check if your PCI device ID is listed in "lib/librte_eal/common/
82599ES is not listed in lib/librte_eal/common/
On the other hand, 82599EB (which works okay with DPDK) is not listed there
> Can you verify that you have bound your device to "igb_uio", perhaps
using "tools/pci_unbind.py" (maybe renamed to tools/igb_uio_bind.py)?
$ sudo pci_unbind.py --status
Network devices using IGB_UIO driver
0000:07:00.0 '82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ Network Connection' drv=igb_uio
> You might also try to edit the ".config" (in your build directory, NOT
the Linux .config) to enable any of the "CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IXGBE_
DEBUG_*" options, in case there are more error messages.
I enabled debugging as you said, and run testpmd app.
It ends with an error "Cause: No probed ethernet devices - check that
CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IGB_PMD=y and that CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_EM_PMD=y and that
CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IXGBE_PMD=y in your configuration file"
Here is the detailed debug output:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Shaw, Jeffrey B
<jeffrey.b.shaw at intel.com>wrote:
> Can you check if your PCI device ID is listed in
> Can you verify that you have bound your device to "igb_uio", perhaps using
> "tools/pci_unbind.py" (maybe renamed to tools/igb_uio_bind.py)?
> You might also try to edit the ".config" (in your build directory, NOT the
> Linux .config) to enable any of the "CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IXGBE_DEBUG_*"
> options, in case there are more error messages.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of HS
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 10:30 AM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] 82599ES NIC support
> I was trying to test DPDK 1.6 with "82599ES" Intel NIC, but noticed that
> DPDK does not seem to work with this NIC. DPDK app fails because
> rte_eth_dev_count() returns 0.
> On the other hand, I confirmed DPDK works okay with "82599EB".
> So looks like not all 82599 (ixgbe) chipsets are supported by DPDK while
> it says so in http://dpdk.org/doc/nics
> What is the discrepancy between 82599ES and 82599EB, which causes the
> former to fail to work with DPDK?
> Is it possible to fix this problem? I'll be glad to help fix it.
More information about the dev