On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:49:08PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > The SFP module identification code in sfp_sm_mod_probe() will reject SFF > modules soldered down because they have an identified of 0x2, while the code > currently checks for 0x3 only (SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP), update that. > > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 5 +++-- > include/linux/sfp.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c > index e381811e5f11..942288aa9cdb 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c > @@ -463,8 +463,9 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_probe(struct sfp *sfp) > vendor, part, rev, sn, date); > > /* We only support SFP modules, not the legacy GBIC modules. */ > - if (sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP || > - sfp->id.base.phys_ext_id != SFP_PHYS_EXT_ID_SFP) { > + if ((sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFP && > + sfp->id.base.phys_id != SFP_PHYS_ID_SFF) || > + sfp->id.base.phys_ext_id != SFP_PHYS_EXT_ID_SFP) {
I'd prefer that we do something like the patch I sent a couple of nights ago, having a separate compatible for the SFF modules (since they have no insert signal as SFF is soldered in place) and use that to decide which phys_id we accept here. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up