From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 11 19:02:09 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 C6672106566B for ; Tue, 11 May 2010 19:02:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from patrick@klos.com) Received: from sage.klos.com (sage.klos.com [IPv6:2001:470:a068:1:21b:21ff:fe06:b8ac]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A1F8FC15 for ; Tue, 11 May 2010 19:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.131] (c-98-217-139-25.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [98.217.139.25]) (authenticated bits=0) by sage.klos.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4BJ25UN006651 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 May 2010 19:02:06 GMT Message-ID: <4BE9A9A7.4000004@klos.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:01:59 -0400 From: Patrick Klos User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jack Vogel References: <4BE9628E.9030708@klos.com> In-Reply-To: X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.5 (sage.klos.com [192.80.49.1]); Tue, 11 May 2010 19:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 19:02:09 -0000 Jack Vogel wrote: > 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. Thanks for the reply Jack, The code for the 82599 is specific in that it checks for (and allows to be used) ONLY Intel SFP+'s. The 82598 is a little more flexible in that it supports 4 vendors (including Finisar). Any idea why 4 SFP+ vendors are supported on the 82598, but not the 82599? Also, the very existance of a definition for IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP (and code to check it) implies the ability of the 82599 to be able to be configured to support "any" SFP, although I can't find any reference to the bit or capability in the 82599 datasheet? Is that a possible "future" feature? Lastly (for now), can support for an additional SFP+ (like the Finisar) be */added /*to the 82599 driver or is there something that would prevent that? Thanks again! Patrick