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: <5AB0FD5E.21201.43D3CF63@Frantisek.Rysanek.post.cz>
Date:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:23:58 +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 20 Mar 2018 at 13:09, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > 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!
> 
Yes - "should" is the right way to put it.

Looking around, I'm wondering how much general-purpose hardware gets 
sold with an Intel gigabit chip and SFP sockets. Note: sockets for 
actual SFP's, rather than SFP-size transceivers soldered onboard (and 
hardwired in the i210 config EEPROM). It took me quite a while to 
find such a board from DeLock.
I mean to say that I doubt how much actual testing on humans this i2c 
code has enjoyed :-) but admittedly I'm being cheeky here, I haven't 
reviewed that part of the driver.

Frank