All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
To: Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@amorsen.dk>
Cc: "e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:19:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1326925160.2795.45.camel@probook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m3d3ag7ki8.fsf@ursa.amorsen.dk>

On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 22:45 +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com> writes:
> 
> > For X520 adapters, the documentation[1] states that which SFP+
> > adapters are/are not supported.  Direct attach cables are also
> > supported.
> >
> > [1] http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm
> 
> I can't believe that locked optics have now arrived on commodity
> hardware. I have been trying to migrate to all-Intel networking at work;
> that effort is certainly on hold now.

I cannot understand why Intel are pulling a stunt like this! :-(

I have read the code, and the limitation comes from a EEPROM setting on
the NIC, see define "IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP 0x1".

Here is a (untested) patch I believe removes the limitation in the
driver:


[PATCH] ixgbe: Always allow any SFP+ regardless of EEPROM setting.

Intel are trying to limit which SFP's we can use in our NICs.
We don't like this practices in the Linux Kernel.

Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c
index 7cf1e1f..2b13083 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c
@@ -1061,6 +1061,8 @@ s32 ixgbe_identify_sfp_module_generic(struct ixgbe_hw *hw)
 		}
 
 		hw->mac.ops.get_device_caps(hw, &enforce_sfp);
+		/* Hack: Always allow any SFP regardless of EEPROM setting */
+		enforce_sfp |= IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP;
 		if (!(enforce_sfp & IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP) &&
 		    !((hw->phy.sfp_type == ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_cu_core0) ||
 		      (hw->phy.sfp_type == ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_cu_core1))) {



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
To learn more about Intel&#174; Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired

  reply	other threads:[~2012-01-18 22:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-18 11:30 ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC? Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-01-18 17:13 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2012-01-18 20:00   ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-01-18 21:45   ` Benny Amorsen
2012-01-18 22:19     ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
2012-01-18 22:43       ` Ben Greear
2012-01-19 14:46       ` [PATCH RFC] ixgbe: Module param "allow_any_sfp" for allowing unsupported SFP+ modules Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-01-20  1:12         ` Jeff Kirsher
2012-01-18 22:21     ` [E1000-devel] ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC? Fujinaka, Todd
2012-01-18 22:40       ` Ben Greear
2012-01-19 11:50         ` David Lamparter
2012-01-19  1:12       ` [E1000-devel] " Chuck Anderson
2012-01-19  2:55         ` Simon Chen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1326925160.2795.45.camel@probook \
    --to=hawk@comx.dk \
    --cc=benny+usenet@amorsen.dk \
    --cc=e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.