From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] sfp: Add support for DWDM SFP modules Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:58:05 +0900 (KST) Message-ID: <20171117.145805.1791714892851517653.davem@davemloft.net> References: <5226d9535b31269e0388b781ef815ee2183ee3b9.1510745986.git.jan.kundrat@cesnet.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk, f.fainelli@gmail.com, andrew@lunn.ch To: jan.kundrat@cesnet.cz Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:54630 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750878AbdKQF6J (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:58:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5226d9535b31269e0388b781ef815ee2183ee3b9.1510745986.git.jan.kundrat@cesnet.cz> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Jan Kundrát Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 12:39:33 +0100 > Without this patch, but with CONFIG_SFP enabled, my NIC won't detect > module unplugging, which is suboptimal. > > I'm using an OEM "Cisco compatible" DWDM fixed-frequency 100Ghz-grid SFP > module. It reports itself as a 0x0b 0x24. According to SFF-8024, byte 0 > value "0Bh" refers to a "DWDM-SFP/SFP+ (not using SFF-8472)". In > practice, there's a lot of shared properties here. > > Everything is apparently defined in a document called "DWDM SFP MSA > (Multi-source Agreement), Revision 1.0, 19th September 2005". I don't > have access to that ocument (yet). Its likely source, the > http://www.dwdmsfpmsa.org/ has been down for years. > > From the datasheets that I was able to find on random vendors' web, the > second byte can vary -- 0x27 is used, too. > > Tested on Clearfog Base with v4.14 and Russell King's SFP patches. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kundrát Russell, Florian, Amdrew, can I get a review?