netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool v2 3/4] ethtool: Rename QSFP-DD identifiers to use CMIS 4.0

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: <YLTxWcO1pNQkN3Yr@shredder>
Date:   Mon, 31 May 2021 17:23:21 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Don Bollinger <don@...bollingers.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Vladyslav Tarasiuk <vladyslavt@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool v2 3/4] ethtool: Rename QSFP-DD identifiers to
 use CMIS 4.0

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 05:18:59PM +0300, Moshe Shemesh wrote:
> From: Vladyslav Tarasiuk <vladyslavt@...dia.com>
> 
> QSFP-DD and DSFP EEPROM layout complies to CMIS 4.0 specification. As
> DSFP support is added, there are currently two standards, which share
> the same infrastructure. Rename QSFP_DD and qsfp_dd occurrences to use
> CMIS4 or cmis4 respectively to make function names generic for any
> module compliant to CMIS 4.0.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vladyslav Tarasiuk <vladyslavt@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
> ---
>  Makefile.am             |   2 +-
>  qsfp-dd.c => cmis4.c    | 210 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>  cmis4.h                 | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  netlink/module-eeprom.c |   2 +-
>  qsfp.c                  |   2 +-
>  5 files changed, 236 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-)
>  rename qsfp-dd.c => cmis4.c (56%)
>  create mode 100644 cmis4.h

Is there a reason to call this "cmis4" instead of just "cmis"? Revision
5.0 was published earlier this month [1] and I assume more revisions
will follow.

Other standards (e.g., SFF-8024) also have multiple revisions and the
revision number is only mentioned in the "revision compliance" field.

[1] http://www.qsfp-dd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CMIS5p0.pdf