netdev - Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

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]

Date:   Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:20:10 +0100
From:   "Frantisek Rysanek" <Frantisek.Rysanek@...t.cz>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

On 17 Mar 2018 at 15:50, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:39:00AM +0100, Frantisek Rysanek wrote:
> > On 16 Mar 2018 at 22:02, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > 
> > > Does ethtool -m show anything useful?
> > > 
> > 
> > Not much. "unsupported".
> 
> static int igb_get_module_info(struct net_device *netdev,
>                                struct ethtool_modinfo *modinfo)
> {
>         struct igb_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
>         struct e1000_hw *hw = &adapter->hw;
>         u32 status = 0;
>         u16 sff8472_rev, addr_mode;
>         bool page_swap = false;
> 
>         if ((hw->phy.media_type == e1000_media_type_copper) ||
>             (hw->phy.media_type == e1000_media_type_unknown))
>                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> Suggests that the driver does not know you have a fibre module.
>
Good! I'll check this out.
Even if it means that I have to hack the "sequence of initialization" 
in the flow of driver code... (again.)
 
> > Right now I've modded igb_init_i2c() to engage the bit-banging
> > i2c driver for the i210 too
> 
> I don't think that will work. The datasheet for the i210 talks about
> two registers for I2C/MDIO which are not bit-banging. Only the i350
> uses bit-banging.
> 
>From the i210 datasheet, page 477:
chapter 8.17.9 "SFP I2C Parameters" - reg. I2CPARAMS (0x102C; R/W)
bit 8 "I2CBB_EN" = I2C bit-bang enable.
And about 6 more bits for SDA and SCL direction, input and output.
Looking through existing code of the bit-banging callbacks for i350, 
their function would seem identical between the i210 and i350.
I may check the bit definition macros again, if the scope shows 
nothing.

If the HW implementation of the I2C protocol doesn't work for some 
reason, I can as well try bit-banging it.

Thanks for your continued input :-)

Frank