On Thursday 31 December 2020 16:09:25 Andrew Lunn wrote:

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 01:14:10PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday 30 December 2020 19:09:58 Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 06:43:07PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday 30 December 2020 18:13:15 Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

Hi Pali

I have to agree with Russell here. I would rather have no diagnostics
than untrustable diagnostics.

Ok!

So should we completely skip hwmon_device_register_with_info() call
if (i2c_block_size < 2) ?

I don't think that alone is sufficient - there's also the matter of
ethtool -m which will dump that information as well, and we don't want
to offer it to userspace in an unreliable form.

Any idea/preference how to disable access to these registers?

quoted

For reference, here is what SFF-8472 which defines the diagnostics, says
about this:

  To guarantee coherency of the diagnostic monitoring data, the host is
  required to retrieve any multi-byte fields from the diagnostic
  monitoring data structure (IE: Rx Power MSB - byte 104 in A2h, Rx Power
  LSB - byte 105 in A2h) by the use of a single two-byte read sequence
  across the two-wire interface interface.

  The transceiver is required to ensure that any multi-byte fields which
  are updated with diagnostic monitoring data (e.g. Rx Power MSB - byte
  104 in A2h, Rx Power LSB - byte 105 in A2h) must have this update done
  in a fashion which guarantees coherency and consistency of the data. In
  other words, the update of a multi-byte field by the transceiver must
  not occur such that a partially updated multi-byte field can be
  transferred to the host. Also, the transceiver shall not update a
  multi-byte field within the structure during the transfer of that
  multi-byte field to the host, such that partially updated data would be
  transferred to the host.

The first paragraph is extremely definitive in how these fields shall
be read atomically - by a _single_ two-byte read sequence. From what
you are telling us, these modules do not support that. Therefore, by
definition, they do *not* support proper and reliable reporting of
diagnostic data, and are non-conformant with the SFP MSAs.

So, they are basically broken, and the diagnostics can't be used to
retrieve data that can be said to be useful.

I agree they are broken. We really should disable access to those 16bit
registers.

Anyway here is "datasheet" to some CarlitoxxPro SFP:
https://www.docdroid.net/hRsJ560/cpgos03-0490v2-datasheet-10-pdf

And on page 10 is written:

    The I2C system can support the mode of random address / single
    byteread which conform to SFF-8431.

Which seems to be wrong.

Searching around, i found:

http://read.pudn.com/downloads776/doc/3073304/RTL9601B-CG_Datasheet.pdf

It has two i2c busses, a master and a slave. The master bus can do
multi-byte transfers. The slave bus description says nothing in words
about multi-byte transfers, but the diagram shows only single byte
transfers.

Yes. Only i2c slave is used for communication with external entity and
diagrams clearly shows that only single byte i2c transfers are
supported.

So any SFP based around this device is broken.

Exactly. That is why I send this patch in a way that try to detect these
RTL chips and not particular vendors who create product on top of this
chip.

All SFP modules with this RTL9601B chip are broken and cannot be fixed.

Re-branders and OEM vendors like CarlitoxxPro or UBNT should stop saying
that they are compliant to SFP/SFF standards, because based on above
descriptions it is not truth.

The silly thing is, it is reading/writing from a shadow SRAM. The CPU
is not directly involved in an I2C transaction. So it could easily
read multiple bytes from the SRAM and return them. But it would still
need a synchronisation method to handle writes from the CPU to the
SRAM, in order to make these word values safe.

But there is a still issue how to read these values from SRAM outside of
SFP module via i2c. And with current one-byte transfers of that i2c
slave on RTL9601B it is impossible via current SFP diagnostic API
specification.