Intel 82599 with non-Intel SFP+'s?

[Patrick Klos-3]

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



_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"

[Jack Vogel]

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 <[hidden email]> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> [hidden email]"
>

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"

[Patrick Klos-3]

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

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"