linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: dts: NSP: Enable SFP on bcm958625hr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 27 Aug 2018 23:31:53 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        Jon Mason <jonmason@...adcom.com>,
        "maintainer:BROADCOM IPROC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: dts: NSP: Enable SFP on bcm958625hr

> > Hi Florian
> > 
> > I didn't need anything like this for the mv88e6xxx. I had patches
> > merged in -rc1 to make SFF work connected to the mv88e6390. The DT
> > change was not merged, but it is here:
> > 
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/955635/
> > 
> > +					port@9 {
> > +						reg = <9>;
> > +						label = "sff2";
> > +						phy-mode = "sgmii";
> > +						managed = "in-band-status";
> 
> 						^=====
> 
> Yes that is what I was missing, thanks Andrew! Still not 100% sure why
> having a "sfp" phandle is not enough, but I suppose there are
> problematic cases like the ZII Devel Rev. B where we have a SFF and we
> are not able to auto-negotiate the fiber connection.

ZII Devel Rev. B is actually broken, should not work, but does
somehow. The SFF 3 and 4 are connected to switch ports which cannot do
1000Base-X. They are using something like SGMII. So the link partner
needs to be very forgiving. But it happens that the link partners i'm
testing against are forgiving. SFF 1 and 2 are generally not
populated. If they are, i think you need to remove a resistor, to make
them work. But they are then connected to a switch port which does use
1000Base-X.

Now, since ZII devel B is technically broken, i would not be too
unhappy if "sfp" phandle implies managed = "in-band-status" by
default, so long as we can still use fixed-link somehow.

	 Andrew