netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] net: sfp: assume that LOS is not implemented if both LOS normal and inverted is set

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:   Sun, 10 Jan 2021 00:50:56 +0100
From:   Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Schreiber <tschreibe@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] net: sfp: assume that LOS is not implemented if
 both LOS normal and inverted is set

On Saturday 09 January 2021 23:19:54 Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 08:14:47PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Saturday 09 January 2021 15:46:01 Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 05:54:28PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 04:37:48PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > > From: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some GPON SFP modules (e.g. Ubiquiti U-Fiber Instant) have set both
> > > > > SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED and SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL bits in their EEPROM.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Such combination of bits is meaningless so assume that LOS signal is not
> > > > > implemented.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch fixes link carrier for GPON SFP module Ubiquiti U-Fiber Instant.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> > > 
> > > I'd like to send this patch irrespective of discussion on the other
> > > patches - I already have it committed in my repository with a different
> > > description, but the patch content is the same.
> > > 
> > > Are you happy if I transfer Andrew's r-b tag, and convert yours to an
> > > acked-by before I send it?
> > > 
> > > I'd also like to add a patch that allows 2.5G if no other modes are
> > > found, but the bitrate specified by the module allows 2.5G speed - much
> > > like we do for 1G speeds.
> > 
> > Russell, should I send a new version of patch series without this patch?
> 
> I think there's some work to be done for patch 1, so I was thinking of
> sending this with another SFP patch. It's really a bug fix since the
> existing code doesn't behave very well if both bits are set - it will
> toggle state on every RX_LOS event received irrespective of the RX_LOS
> state.

Ok! So I will fix what is needed for patch 1, send it with patch 3 as
next version and let patch 2 to you.