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

Message-ID: <20180320120936.GA19142@lunn.ch>
Date:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:09:36 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Frantisek Rysanek <Frantisek.Rysanek@...t.cz>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY
 to MDIO requests?

> i2cdetect has found three i2c slaves (identical layout in both SFP's) 
> at addresses 0x50, 0x51 and 0x56.
> What are they? EEPROM, DDM and "MDIO over i2c" ?
> The SFP's likely lack a proper SFP MSA data structure.

0x50 and 0x51 are EEPROM like. See drivers/net/phy/sfp.c. The standard
at24 EEPROM driver can also read it. And so should the SFP code in the
igb driver!

> Does this make sense as some sort of proprietary standard 
> (Cisco, if I should take the vendor's label at face value),
> or is this likely some "3rd-party innovation thinko", not worth
> implementing?

See if drivers/net/phy/mdio-i2c.c is useful. I'm just guessing here.

    Andrew