[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180517124127.GG8547@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 14:41:28 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, linux@...linux.org.uk, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com, gregory.clement@...tlin.com,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, nadavh@...vell.com, stefanc@...vell.com,
ymarkman@...vell.com, mw@...ihalf.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: phy: sfp: make the i2c-bus property
really optional
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:29:06AM +0200, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> The SFF,SFP documentation is clear about making all the DT properties,
> with the exception of the compatible, optional. In practice this is not
> the case and without an i2c-bus property provided the SFP code will
> throw NULL pointer exceptions.
>
> This patch is an attempt to fix this.
Hi Antoine, Russell
How usable is an SFF/SFP module without access to the i2c EEPROM? I
guess this comes down to link speed. Can it be manually configured?
I'm just wondering if we want to make this mandatory? Fail the probe
if it is not listed?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists