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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f209cd19-b841-22c5-ad08-b41f36a270c8@nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:17:57 +0300
From:   Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
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 5/31/2021 5:23 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> 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.


We called it cmis4 as we comply here with CMIS version 4.

However, I understand your point that other eeprom module specifications 
only spec number is mentioned and probably we can do the same here.

Andrew, Michal, WDYT ?


> 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