On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 11:41 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:33:57AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No. I think you've missed the fact that one is a _warning_ the other is
> an _error_ and they are emitted at the appropriate severity. It's not
> just that the format strings are slightly different.
Right. Still nicer to use the same formats.
cheers, Joe
