[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <VI1PR0402MB28007002CABED79C95DC093DE04E0@VI1PR0402MB2800.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:33:41 +0000
From: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> > > Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control
> > > support
> > >
> > > Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows
> > > TX_FAULT and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We
> > > make use of this when the board does not support GPIOs for these
> signals.
> >
> > Hi Russell,
> >
> > With this addition, shouldn't the following print be removed?
> >
> > [ 2.967583] sfp sfp-mac4: No tx_disable pin: SFP modules will always be
> emitting.
>
> No, because modules do not have to provide the soft controls.
>
I understand that the soft controls are optional but can't we read
byte 93 (Enhanced Options) and see if bit 6 (Optional soft TX_DISABLE control)
is set or not (ie the soft TX_DISABLE is implemented)?
Ioana
Powered by blists - more mailing lists