Message-ID: <CAOZT0pWv_bt8EKhHjHt7dz5H5gdD4XrFaN3UF9jkzaM5+ebyqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:58:37 +0900
From:   照山周一郎 <teruyama@...ingboard-inc.jp>
To:     Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>
Cc:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net,stable] phy: sfp: fix high power modules without diag mode

To whom it may concern

Thank you for summarizing the process.
I am sorry for the inconvenience caused by my poor English.

My patch was incomplete, and Russell made it better.
I have checked Russell's fix on real hardware and it works correctly.
I was also aware that Bjørn had taken over the rest of the merging
work, leaving me as the reporter.

If there is anything else I should be doing, please let me know.

Thanks

2022年1月17日(月) 23:49 Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>:
>
> On 17/01/2022 15:24, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 05:58:43PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> >> On 03/12/2021 13:58, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 11:54:57AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> Thinking a little more, how about this:
> >>>
> >>>    drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>    1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> >>> index 51a1da50c608..4c900d063b19 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> >>> @@ -1752,17 +1752,20 @@ static int sfp_sm_probe_for_phy(struct sfp *sfp)
> >>>    static int sfp_module_parse_power(struct sfp *sfp)
> >>>    {
> >>>     u32 power_mW = 1000;
> >>> +   bool supports_a2;
> >>>     if (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_POWER_DECL))
> >>>             power_mW = 1500;
> >>>     if (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_HIGH_POWER_LEVEL))
> >>>             power_mW = 2000;
> >>> +   supports_a2 = sfp->id.ext.sff8472_compliance !=
> >>> +                           SFP_SFF8472_COMPLIANCE_NONE ||
> >>> +                 sfp->id.ext.diagmon & SFP_DIAGMON_DDM;
> >>> +
> >>>     if (power_mW > sfp->max_power_mW) {
> >>>             /* Module power specification exceeds the allowed maximum. */
> >>> -           if (sfp->id.ext.sff8472_compliance ==
> >>> -                   SFP_SFF8472_COMPLIANCE_NONE &&
> >>> -               !(sfp->id.ext.diagmon & SFP_DIAGMON_DDM)) {
> >>> +           if (!supports_a2) {
> >>>                     /* The module appears not to implement bus address
> >>>                      * 0xa2, so assume that the module powers up in the
> >>>                      * indicated mode.
> >>> @@ -1779,11 +1782,24 @@ static int sfp_module_parse_power(struct sfp *sfp)
> >>>             }
> >>>     }
> >>> +   if (power_mW <= 1000) {
> >>> +           /* Modules below 1W do not require a power change sequence */
> >>> +           return 0;
> >>> +   }
> >>> +
> >>> +   if (!supports_a2) {
> >>> +           /* The module power level is below the host maximum and the
> >>> +            * module appears not to implement bus address 0xa2, so assume
> >>> +            * that the module powers up in the indicated mode.
> >>> +            */
> >>> +           return 0;
> >>> +   }
> >>> +
> >>>     /* If the module requires a higher power mode, but also requires
> >>>      * an address change sequence, warn the user that the module may
> >>>      * not be functional.
> >>>      */
> >>> -   if (sfp->id.ext.diagmon & SFP_DIAGMON_ADDRMODE && power_mW > 1000) {
> >>> +   if (sfp->id.ext.diagmon & SFP_DIAGMON_ADDRMODE) {
> >>>             dev_warn(sfp->dev,
> >>>                      "Address Change Sequence not supported but module requires %u.%uW, module may not be functional\n",
> >>>                      power_mW / 1000, (power_mW / 100) % 10);
> >>>
> >>
> >> The reporter has problems reaching you. But from what I can tell in his reply to his
> >> OpenWrt Github PR:
> >> <https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/4802#issuecomment-1013439827>
> >>
> >> your approach is working perfectly. Could you spin this up as a fully-fledged patch (backports?)
> >
> > There seems to be no problem - I received an email on the 30 December
> > complete with the test logs. However, that was during the holiday period
> > and has been buried, so thanks for the reminder.
> >
> > However, I'm confused about who the reporter and testers actually are,
> > so I'm not sure who to put in the Reported-by and Tested-by fields.
> >  From what I can see, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no> reported it (at least
> > to mainline devs), and the fix was tested by 照山周一郎
> > <teruyama@...ingboard-inc.jp>.
> >
> > Is that correct? Thanks.
> >
>
>  From what I know, you are correct there. 照山周一郎 posted a patch
> "skip hpower setting for the module which has no revs" to fix his
> issue to the OpenWrt-Devel Mailinglist on the 28th November 2021:
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org/msg60669.html>
>
> |
> |@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> |@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> |--- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> |+++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> |@@ -1590,6 +1590,8 @@ static int sfp_module_parse_power(struct
> |
> | static int sfp_sm_mod_hpower(struct sfp *sfp, bool enable)
> | {
> |+      if (sfp->id.ext.sff8472_compliance == SFP_SFF8472_COMPLIANCE_NONE)
> |+              return 0;
> |       u8 val;
> |       int err;
>
> Bjørn Mork picked this up and noted:
> |This looks like a workaround for a specific buggy module.  Is that
> |correct?   Why not update sfp_module_parse_power() instead so you can
> |skip the HPOWER state completely?  And add an appropriate warning about
> |this unexpected combination of options and sff8472_compliance..."
>
> and the thread went from there, with Bjørn Mork notifying you/upstream
> about the problem because of the language barrier.
>
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org/msg60697.html>
>
> | 照山周一郎 <teruy...@...ingboard-inc.jp> writes:
> |
> |> Thank you for your quick response.
> |> It worked without any problems.
> |
> |Thanks for testing! I submitted this to netdev with a stable hint now.
> |So it should end up in Linux v5.10.x, and therefore also OpenWrt, in a
> |few weeks unless there are objections.
>
> So, one could argue that both reported this in a way and 照山周一郎 tested
> it on his hardware.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian (got to catch a train)



-- 
株式会社スプリングボード
照山　周一郎
teruyama@...ingboard-inc.jp
http://www.springboard-inc.jp/
〒110-0005
東京都台東区上野3丁目2番2号
アイオス秋葉原505号室

Powered by blists - more mailing lists