From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 11 17:29:47 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969BB106566B for ; Tue, 11 May 2010 17:29:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28AD38FC15 for ; Tue, 11 May 2010 17:29:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so524853wyg.13 for ; Tue, 11 May 2010 10:29:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qfdj0eq+KNMYr5CzV5hD3TU3pmG+0an7FpBTRQXR00M=; b=bo1dXHFoBNQ66YGtYNxfZ5IBEOxkVXVbcvVr5i4epzTLFRLb9yrFhZzS0YIHu8Vfut Ary3xffruZTkVaaYtNArWS0k3Ev65eyUfj7lgwGNWUTVn9Y1QCZ3f61E8le/o2lqm//i uoUs7u1soKgIvVkDSOsvIJhZr0+6RijJgEeyw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=PYefOZX9auP44fM7ZZyxwr/ImHQCiCaDl4alocdx9d7e3DNLE9ZgcKNJpmjFbZBbQY HLB9ME8eXz8HZsBoErMNEk4o8nucsIlqy3LHLZVWtEQBRgCRs/ViP4o9kE0/C89FzRt+ SMs8Ri6eyA3qn01Ib+Sk2/Aw+zD7GY84febVA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.89.143 with SMTP id c15mr3743582wef.127.1273598986025; Tue, 11 May 2010 10:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.29.129 with HTTP; Tue, 11 May 2010 10:29:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BE9628E.9030708@klos.com> References: <4BE9628E.9030708@klos.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:29:40 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jack Vogel To: Patrick Klos Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel 82599 with non-Intel SFP+'s? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:29:47 -0000 Intel can only support a finite set of hardware, it is NOT a matter of it being some "Intel" part, its a matter of some SFPs that are out there DO NOT WORK, so engineering here was able to delimit, validate, and thus certify a specific set of SFPs, the software check is there to make sure that you use something we can know works. Jack On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Patrick Klos wrote: > Hello, > > I am building a packet capture box based on the Intel 82599 controller in a > FreeBSD box. I purchased the Intel Ethernet X520 cards and Finisar SFP+'s, > but apparently the 82599 does not support non-Intel SFP+'s? The code in the > driver checks for the SFP vendor if a bit in the device capabilities is not > set: > > ixgbe_get_device_caps(hw, &enforce_sfp); > if (!(enforce_sfp & IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP)) { > // check if the PHY is Intel only > } > > Any idea how to set the IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP bit in the > hardware? Is it even settable? Why does the 82599 care? I can't find any > reference to it in the 82599 datasheet. > > Thanks, > > Patrick Klos > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >