netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: phy: sfp: make the i2c-bus property really optional

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]

Date:   Thu, 17 May 2018 14:41:28 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, linux@...linux.org.uk, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
        maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com, gregory.clement@...tlin.com,
        miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, nadavh@...vell.com, stefanc@...vell.com,
        ymarkman@...vell.com, mw@...ihalf.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: phy: sfp: make the i2c-bus property
 really optional

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:29:06AM +0200, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> The SFF,SFP documentation is clear about making all the DT properties,
> with the exception of the compatible, optional. In practice this is not
> the case and without an i2c-bus property provided the SFP code will
> throw NULL pointer exceptions.
> 
> This patch is an attempt to fix this.

Hi Antoine, Russell

How usable is an SFF/SFP module without access to the i2c EEPROM? I
guess this comes down to link speed. Can it be manually configured?

I'm just wondering if we want to make this mandatory? Fail the probe
if it is not listed?

	Andrew