From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792851684; b=bSyyCmnT+KISoo3LHi9JDbD0TFfXCWcp+fGJeKIGA8tslbxilEq38TJD+iA/AUh3slR+ IrCpwIoXeEsQ2gn9jQs41lRgwqF+nXO+03I/89fm14WGgSw0xdJ1DQjeL3AJ4eFAjYrwh YxkPbmlyTSszNg41R058FYNFm4SvKXwBXQc7Zz5ETI7SPizHbIhG46rXveFB/nq79W5Wg fNb0WVFCKQyClKHv1u5w5L4sO/S1DpGvyknuLlzITEKLGVtD+CrUouItPIeGbopzp/9/u +5FhWlUBoIGzX5M9JijKvBJ4PXACM7y+U2Bd1j2iyFAGcCAiYmJu8pvLMEK5F2pGoiA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792851684; h=DMARC-Filter:DKIM-Signature:Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject: Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To; bh=ILKql1U17ZfYdbGh/o09NbbC6DxSQr/t8U530mCEIZ4=; b=vL+Vpb/F7YLRrG4CZi3P1bQg2NMRPg1YscwB1nVrFDvJLMbJTjuHnS8KzRvismw6skyN Tuw19rn99kv23eG0P+6vvdTeQFm2OKM7F6o/96/z5Wja/XiBTjvcDf6Gjpt71/o8T5SmG DUNwY5tvyYDTHNcsZLb/aN3z7qJaBz7nR6uzqgpIxjXeWw5EIK96EfPXzaaFdYOOea8FD wAqECQYV66fDHnsQl7jSHRBKpghIlHcj/UGliFPXSVd2qqgnZNWedEsbGH+YhJvGnijZi 8ZGNEybV7Wy4BtTrhBpC7gb93btr34jD3+Ajep4sjL1rBwEAWAwKCARbwFtuah9FzRA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20171124 header.b=4NSztzYm; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=156.67.10.101 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 378B9606A31A for ; Sat, 24 Oct 2026 14:21:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 378B9606A31A Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20171124 header.b=4NSztzYm DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=ILKql1U17ZfYdbGh/o09NbbC6DxSQr/t8U530mCEIZ4=; b=4NSztzYm6XtVv+qtDLDx+cyrgn yYUNWMA44UPyKDo5O6TdcLrl2hrZ5bq6Rf/uTPKYVz7p5kCrhGlMz2hkXBrWXPvG9ZsyqJMuBj2CQ ToeFvmS3iCqhqtCwwFWfcp5+ov6K4ZSpu367ZZ/Szp/rvMeiL70qe2KeG1vZb0/P+0bk=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1xKccU-00CXf8-8R; Sat, 24 Oct 2026 16:21:14 +0200 Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2026 16:21:14 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: David Mestre Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net: sfp: add quirk for OEM SFP-2.5G-T-C Message-ID: <1f015d68-c1b0-486d-8edf-bfc453f97f7c@lunn.ch> References: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 07:49:29PM +0200, David Mestre wrote: > The OEM SFP-2.5G-T-C module needs the same fixed 2500BASE-X host link > as the existing OEM SFP-2.5G-T entry. On a ZBT Z8803BE (MT7988), > the module has no carrier with in-band autonegotiation enabled. > Forcing 2500 Mbit/s, full duplex and autonegotiation off restores > the link. > > The existing OEM SFP-2.5G-T entry requires an exact part-name match, > so it does not match the -C variant. Reuse its quirk for the exact > additional part name. > > Signed-off-by: David Mestre This is something which could go via net, rather than net-next. Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn Andrew