Re: [PATCH net-next 03/11] ixgbe: Add 10G-BX support

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 07:33:13 +0100 Birger Koblitz wrote:
> > In ixgbe_identify_sfp_module_generic(), what happens when a module has
> > the 10G-BX characteristics (empty comp_codes_10g, bitrate 0x67, fiber
> > mode) but the link length check fails (both sm_length values < 1km)?
> > 
> > The outer else-if condition matches, so we skip the final else clause
> > that sets sfp_type to unknown. But the inner if condition fails, so we
> > don't set the 10g_bx type either. This leaves hw->phy.sfp_type
> > unchanged from whatever value it had previously.
> > 
> > All other branches in this if-else chain explicitly set sfp_type, but
> > this path only conditionally sets it. Should there be an else clause
> > after the inner if to set sfp_type = ixgbe_sfp_type_unknown when the
> > link length requirement isn't met?  
> The ixgbe_identify_sfp_module_generic detects SFP modules that it knows 
> how to initialize in a positive manner, that is all the conditions have 
> to be fulfilled. If this is not the case, then the default from 
> ixgbe_main.c:ixgbe_probe() kicks in, which sets
> 	hw->phy.sfp_type = ixgbe_sfp_type_unknown;
> before probing the SFP. The else is unnecessary.
> 
> If the SFP module cannot be positively identified, then that functions 
> logs an error:
> 	e_dev_err("failed to load because an unsupported SFP+ or QSFP module 
> type was detected.\n");
> 	e_dev_err("Reload the driver after installing a supported module.\n");

Got it! perhaps add a note to the commit msg or a comment somewhere to
avoid AI flagging this again?