On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 11:18 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> Cotsworks modules fail the checksums - it appears that Cotsworks
> reprograms the EEPROM at the end of production with the final product
> information (serial, date code, and exact part number for module
> options) and fails to update the checksum.
trivia:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
[]
> @@ -574,23 +575,43 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_probe(struct sfp *sfp)
[]
> + if (cotsworks) {
> + dev_warn(sfp->dev,
> + "EEPROM base structure checksum failure
> (0x%02x != 0x%02x)\n",
> + check, id.base.cc_base);
> + } else {
> + dev_err(sfp->dev,
> + "EEPROM base structure checksum failure: 0x%02x
> != 0x%02x\n",
It'd be better to move this above the if and
use only a single format string instead of
using 2 slightly different formats.
> + check, id.base.cc_base);
> + print_hex_dump(KERN_ERR, "sfp EE: ", DUMP_PREFIX_OFFSET,
> + 16, 1, &id, sizeof(id), true);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> }
>
> check = sfp_check(&id.ext, sizeof(id.ext) - 1);
> if (check != id.ext.cc_ext) {
> - dev_err(sfp->dev,
> - "EEPROM extended structure checksum failure: 0x%02x\n",
> - check);
> - memset(&id.ext, 0, sizeof(id.ext));
> + if (cotsworks) {
> + dev_warn(sfp->dev,
> + "EEPROM extended structure checksum failure
> (0x%02x != 0x%02x)\n",
> + check, id.ext.cc_ext);
> + } else {
> + dev_err(sfp->dev,
> + "EEPROM extended structure checksum failure:
> 0x%02x != 0x%02x\n",
> + check, id.ext.cc_ext);
here too
