Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:29:40 -0700 From: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: Patrick Klos <patrick@klos.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel 82599 with non-Intel SFP+'s? Message-ID: <AANLkTinspJ9C1BcppzXrkdcc1rS9vHywo9uLO4qHgdJn@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4BE9628E.9030708@klos.com> References: <4BE9628E.9030708@klos.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <patrick@klos.com> 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"
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinspJ9C1BcppzXrkdcc1rS9vHywo9uLO4qHgdJn>