From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9DCC47080 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 14:25:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0024613AE for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 14:25:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232694AbhEaO1R (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 May 2021 10:27:17 -0400 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:32977 "EHLO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233713AbhEaOZH (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 May 2021 10:25:07 -0400 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D890D5C0183; Mon, 31 May 2021 10:23:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 31 May 2021 10:23:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=+aB/Mt xAfNs0HuhvD3KKCnu9xC8hel/rQ1nGXPG3MIk=; b=QnpcUutCWCLN2ZGLbSZwJF cjRbO591Ink88KGFDH42dlIeSGc2Knyu4+QwIYD7DGMgyGciZYgMpea+4EbuEJri yk5HRcUP4mzrxRxcRSjy2nicRAZIBqO0oyXW8b4iRygEqAiAL6OlTMeF5c68xpra iVrKNjHJ9t2JdQqpKx2kgwwXnkzDXVnNdUwz2ejE8qW/YA88lIgIvuyHfdFwkhd/ gL6niPgLnC9hzal552zGYnkSZF4tPfpuqdVGaFhdPpZq66nGqBXjsGc99ylrzGne aPNm4Nc9ZlLd1PuUoTTeKmCF9Wb27P+K2tGD04/CG5aD2TCevP44Ibj8mRI806VA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdelfedgjeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefkughoucfu tghhihhmmhgvlhcuoehiughoshgthhesihguohhstghhrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpedtudevffevleefleelvdeghedtieevgfeuffeghfegteeghedvhfffkeeivddv gfenucffohhmrghinhepqhhsfhhpqdguugdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehiughoshgthhesihguohhstghhrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 31 May 2021 10:23:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 17:23:21 +0300 From: Ido Schimmel To: Moshe Shemesh Cc: Michal Kubecek , Andrew Lunn , Jakub Kicinski , Don Bollinger , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Vladyslav Tarasiuk Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool v2 3/4] ethtool: Rename QSFP-DD identifiers to use CMIS 4.0 Message-ID: References: <1621865940-287332-1-git-send-email-moshe@nvidia.com> <1621865940-287332-4-git-send-email-moshe@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1621865940-287332-4-git-send-email-moshe@nvidia.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 05:18:59PM +0300, Moshe Shemesh wrote: > From: Vladyslav Tarasiuk > > QSFP-DD and DSFP EEPROM layout complies to CMIS 4.0 specification. As > DSFP support is added, there are currently two standards, which share > the same infrastructure. Rename QSFP_DD and qsfp_dd occurrences to use > CMIS4 or cmis4 respectively to make function names generic for any > module compliant to CMIS 4.0. > > Signed-off-by: Vladyslav Tarasiuk > Reviewed-by: Moshe Shemesh > --- > Makefile.am | 2 +- > qsfp-dd.c => cmis4.c | 210 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > cmis4.h | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > netlink/module-eeprom.c | 2 +- > qsfp.c | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 236 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-) > rename qsfp-dd.c => cmis4.c (56%) > create mode 100644 cmis4.h Is there a reason to call this "cmis4" instead of just "cmis"? Revision 5.0 was published earlier this month [1] and I assume more revisions will follow. Other standards (e.g., SFF-8024) also have multiple revisions and the revision number is only mentioned in the "revision compliance" field. [1] http://www.qsfp-dd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CMIS5p0.pdf