On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:49:08PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> The SFP module identification code in sfp_sm_mod_probe() will reject SFF
> modules soldered down because they have an identified of 0x2, while the code
> currently checks for 0x3 only (SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP), update that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 5 +++--
> include/linux/sfp.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> index e381811e5f11..942288aa9cdb 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
> @@ -463,8 +463,9 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_probe(struct sfp *sfp)
> vendor, part, rev, sn, date);
>
> /* We only support SFP modules, not the legacy GBIC modules. */
> - if (sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP ||
> - sfp->id.base.phys_ext_id != SFP_PHYS_EXT_ID_SFP) {
> + if ((sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP &&
> + sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFF) ||
> + sfp->id.base.phys_ext_id != SFP_PHYS_EXT_ID_SFP) {
I'd prefer that we do something like the patch I sent a couple of nights
ago, having a separate compatible for the SFF modules (since they have
no insert signal as SFF is soldered in place) and use that to decide
which phys_id we accept here.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
