netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-binding: net: sfp binding documentation

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: <20170904211121.hl2gnwxiizli5brd@tarshish>
Date:   Tue, 5 Sep 2017 00:11:21 +0300
From:   Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-binding: net: sfp binding documentation

Hi Florian,

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 01:16:26PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Le 09/03/17 à 05:31, Baruch Siach a écrit : 

[...]

> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/sff,sfp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/sff,sfp.txt
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..b98ee5945265
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/sff,sfp.txt
> > @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
> > +Small Form Factor (SFF) Committee Small Form-factor Pluggable (SFP)
> > +Transceiver
> > +
> > +Required properties:
> > +
> > +- compatible : must be "sff,sfp"
> > +
> > +Optional Properties:
> > +
> > +- i2c-bus : phandle of an I2C bus controller for the SFP two wire serial
> > +  interface
> > +
> > +- moddef0-gpios : GPIO phandle and a single specifier of the MOD-DEF0 (AKA
> > +  Mod_ABS) module presence input gpio signal, active (module absent) high
> 
> Sorry for nitpicking on this, why are not we naming this mod-def0-gpios
> which would be consistent with how other GPIOs are named?

I'm fine with that as well. It only requires changing the implementation to 
match.

> > +
> > +- los-gpios : GPIO phandle and a single specifier of the Receiver Loss of
> > +  Signal Indication input gpio signal, active (signal lost) high
> > +
> > +- tx-fault-gpios : GPIO phandle and a single specifier of the Module
> > +  Transmitter Fault input gpio signal, active (fault condition) high
> > +
> > +- tx-disable-gpios : GPIO phandle and a single specifier of the Transmitter
> > +  Disable output gpio signal, active (Tx disable) high
> > +
> > +- rate-select0-gpios : GPIO phandle and a single specifier of the Rx Signaling
> > +  Rate Select (AKA RS0) output gpio signal, low: low Rx rate, high: high Rx
> > +  rate
> > +
> > +- rate-select1-gpios : GPIO phandle and a single specifier of the Tx Signaling
> > +  Rate Select (AKA RS1) output gpio signal (SFP+ only), low: low Tx rate,
> > +  high: high Tx rate

baruch

-- 
     http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch@...s.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -