Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: phy: sfp: Do not reject soldered down modules
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Date: 2017-11-08 11:16:00
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:49:08PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
The SFP module identification code in sfp_sm_mod_probe() will reject SFF modules soldered down because they have an identified of 0x2, while the code currently checks for 0x3 only (SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP), update that. Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> --- drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 5 +++-- include/linux/sfp.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c index e381811e5f11..942288aa9cdb 100644 --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c@@ -463,8 +463,9 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_probe(struct sfp *sfp) vendor, part, rev, sn, date); /* We only support SFP modules, not the legacy GBIC modules. */ - if (sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP || - sfp->id.base.phys_ext_id != SFP_PHYS_EXT_ID_SFP) { + if ((sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP && + sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFF) || + sfp->id.base.phys_ext_id != SFP_PHYS_EXT_ID_SFP) {
I'd prefer that we do something like the patch I sent a couple of nights ago, having a separate compatible for the SFF modules (since they have no insert signal as SFF is soldered in place) and use that to decide which phys_id we accept here. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up