From: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v2 1/2] net: phy: marvell: 88e1111: define gigabit features
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:31:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <697e05a3-9ae0-4a84-88ed-9efba98316b1@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aXDreiHjK06lHY9h@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
On 21/01/2026 16:06, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> If you want to try and work out what the media side should be, then
> I think we're basically going to end up needing our own database for
> every transceiver out there... which leads us towards the model that
> vendors use: only accepting transceivers we know about (which leads
> to claims of "vendor lock-in" for this technology.)
Does the current model of applying the fixups/quirks fits that bill of
having some internal database ?
Thing is, from my tests there are modules (e.g. Prolabs GLC-GE-100FX-C)
where neither the eeprom nor the integrated PHY's reported capabilities
are correct. The only reliable thing we have then is the SFP module's
vendor_name + vendor_pn.
From then on, we may say "We trust whatever comes out of reading the
eeprom + applying the quirks" ?
Or am I relying too much on the quirks ?
Maxime
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-22 12:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-01 16:05 [PATCH RFC net-next v2 0/2] net: phy: marvell: 88e1111: define gigabit features Josua Mayer
2026-01-01 16:05 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v2 1/2] " Josua Mayer
2026-01-02 12:47 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2026-01-02 13:55 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2026-01-19 8:30 ` Josua Mayer
2026-01-19 10:52 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2026-01-19 9:27 ` Maxime Chevallier
2026-01-21 9:52 ` Josua Mayer
2026-01-21 15:06 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2026-01-22 12:31 ` Maxime Chevallier [this message]
2026-01-01 16:05 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v2 2/2] net: sfp: support 25G long-range modules (extended compliance code 0x3) Josua Mayer
2026-01-01 17:43 ` Andrew Lunn
2026-01-02 12:48 ` Russell King (Oracle)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=697e05a3-9ae0-4a84-88ed-9efba98316b1@bootlin.com \
--to=maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=josua@solid-run.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox