Thread (23 messages) 23 messages, 5 authors, 2026-03-25

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: sfp: manage receiver and transmitter regulators

From: Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@bootlin.com>
Date: 2026-03-20 09:40:10
Also in: linux-devicetree, lkml

Hello Mark,

On Friday, 6 March 2026 20:20:41 CET Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 06:32:52PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 05:31:36PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
...
quoted
Now, if you're going to say "ah, so it has power pins, you need to
describe them using a regulator" then I would say to you, when are
we introducing regulators for every device we describe in DT such
as LEDs, switches, GPIO pins, RAM, etc? Every device needs to have a
source of power after all.
It sounds from the cover letter for this series like there's some demand
for power control of SFP cages, the cover letter isn't terribly specific
about what circumstances though.  Possibly there's some UI for this on
the system, or the hardware has some mechanism for detecting physical
insertion to the SFP cage (hopefully well in advance of the electrical
contacts being made)?  Romain, are you able to share more specifics on
the use case here?
It seems like my upstreaming strategy was incorrect. The series that I sent is 
a subset of my original use case, but in hindsight I should've just presented 
the original one in the first place, that would've been clearer, sorry about 
that.

Originally, I implemented a runtime PM support in the SFP core. This allowed 
to cut power to the cages when the attached network interface was down, 
thereby saving power. This is interesting since I'm dealing with a battery-
powered system which has SFP cages. However, an upstream version of this would 
require some kind of new userspace interface to signal indifference to module 
detection when the upstream network interface is down. Otherwise it could 
break existing userspace applications which expect to detect and interact with 
SFP modules (e.g. read EEPROMs, read temperature sensors) even when their 
upper network interfaces are down.

Aside from this, what Russell told me in this message:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/aacYGTBobbfJgZpp@shell.armlinux.org.uk/ (local)

suggests that cutting power to SFP cages could lead to unspecified behavior 
with some modules, so for example unloading the SFP core kernel module while 
an SFP module was inserted could have unintended consequences... This problem 
requires some more investigation on my side before I can submit a proper 
runtime PM solution.

Thanks,

-- 
Romain Gantois, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Attachments

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help