[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:18:00 -0600
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Thomas Kupper <thomas@...per.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Raju Rangoju <Raju.Rangoju@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 1/1] amd-xgbe: fix active cable
On 11/11/22 02:46, Thomas Kupper wrote:
> When determine the type of SFP, active cables were not handled.
>
> Add the check for active cables as an extension to the passive cable check.
Is this fixing a particular problem? What SFP is this failing for? A more
descriptive commit message would be good.
Also, since an active cable is supposed to be advertising it's
capabilities in the eeprom, maybe this gets fixed via a quirk and not a
general check this field.
>
> Fixes: abf0a1c2b26a ("amd-xgbe: Add support for SFP+ modules")
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Kupper <thomas.kupper@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
> index 4064c3e3dd49..1ba550d5c52d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
> @@ -1158,8 +1158,9 @@ static void xgbe_phy_sfp_parse_eeprom(struct
> xgbe_prv_data *pdata)
> }
>
> /* Determine the type of SFP */
> - if (phy_data->sfp_cable == XGBE_SFP_CABLE_PASSIVE &&
> - xgbe_phy_sfp_bit_rate(sfp_eeprom, XGBE_SFP_SPEED_10000))
> + if ((phy_data->sfp_cable == XGBE_SFP_CABLE_PASSIVE ||
> + phy_data->sfp_cable == XGBE_SFP_CABLE_ACTIVE) &&
> + xgbe_phy_sfp_bit_rate(sfp_eeprom, XGBE_SFP_SPEED_10000))
This is just the same as saying:
if (xgbe_phy_sfp_bit_rate(sfp_eeprom, XGBE_SFP_SPEED_10000))
since the sfp_cable value is either PASSIVE or ACTIVE.
I'm not sure I like fixing whatever issue you have in this way, though. If
anything, I would prefer this to be a last case scenario and be placed at
the end of the if-then-else block. But it may come down to applying a
quirk for your situation.
Thanks,
Tom
> phy_data->sfp_base = XGBE_SFP_BASE_10000_CR;
> else if (sfp_base[XGBE_SFP_BASE_10GBE_CC] & XGBE_SFP_BASE_10GBE_CC_SR)
> phy_data->sfp_base = XGBE_SFP_BASE_10000_SR;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists