Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: sfp: support 25G long-range modules (extended compliance code 0x3)
From: Josua Mayer <hidden>
Date: 2026-01-21 09:44:33
Also in:
lkml
On 19/01/2026 21:30, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 16:07:38 +0200 Josua Mayer wrote:quoted
@@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ static void sfp_module_parse_support(struct sfp_bus *bus, case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_LR4_25GBASE_LR: case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER: phylink_set(modes, 100000baseLR4_ER4_Full); + phylink_set(modes, 25000baseLR_Full);I _think_ the discussion here concluded that the patch is insufficient / DoA? Either way, I wanted to relay that AI code review points out we may also want to set __set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_25GBASER, interfaces) here: https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-review.html?id=c91c0f54-56d5-4356-89cd-b57cbb289495
I concluded the following: 1. there is no confusion with qsfp / 4 serdes lanes 2. 25GBASER is indeed missing, because this case does not fallthrough. Something open for discussion is whether to handle SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_LR4_25GBASE_LR/_ER differently, e.g.: case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_LR4_25GBASE_LR: phylink_set(modes, 25000baseLR_Full); fallthrough; case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER: phylink_set(modes, 100000baseLR4_ER4_Full); __set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_25GBASER, interfaces); break; I.e. should the ER variant support 25000baseLR_Full?