linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 06/13] net: sfp: Add a sfp-bus ops when connecting a module without PHY

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9354d336-dfc4-426f-9c2f-6e4d4211991e@bootlin.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 18:08:46 +0100
From: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, Christophe Leroy
 <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
 Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
 Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
 Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
 Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
 Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
 Nicolò Veronese <nicveronese@...il.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, mwojtas@...omium.org,
 Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@...tlin.com>,
 Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
 Dimitri Fedrau <dimitri.fedrau@...bherr.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/13] net: sfp: Add a sfp-bus ops when
 connecting a module without PHY

Hi Russell,

On 30/01/2026 17:19, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 02:41:54PM +0100, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
>> The SFP bus infrastructure notifies its upstream when a PHY device was
>> discovered on the module. However, we don't have any indication when a
>> module with no PHY was inserted, except for the .insert() and .start()
>> notifications.
> 
> That's the way you tell - if you get the .start() callback but you
> haven't had a PHY connected, that means there's no PHY.
> 
> There should be no need to add this callback, since you shouldn't be
> thinking that the module is fully initialised until you have received
> the .start() callback.
> 

Ok fair point, thanks for the feedback ! I was about to send V3, but
I'll implement something that doesn't require this new callback then.

Thanks for taking a look :)

Maxime