Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

2018-03-21 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
... yes I've just noticed Russell's patch mentioning mvneta, and found the phylink patches to mvneta in net-next (until then I'd been reading the vanilla, where they haven't landed yet). https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/tre

Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

2018-03-21 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
On 21 Mar 2018 at 11:47, Andrew Lunn , net...@vger.ker wrote: > Another question is, how to write the driver's initialization > sequence, for it to correctly decide if the SFP is SERDES or SGMII or > what. I could just follow the config obtained from the i210 EEPROM. > Alternatively, or somehow

Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

2018-03-21 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
Just another follow-up: With specs on SFP MSA, DDM/DMI and MII in hand, I have determined: 0x50 (a.k.a. 0xA0 in SFP MSA spec) = the module's SPD "EEPROM" 0x51 (a.k.a. 0xA2 in SFP MSA spec) = diagnostics (DMI/DDM) 0x56 = MII management access over i2C Using eeprog (reading each offset twice to

Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

2018-03-20 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
On 20 Mar 2018 at 13:09, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > i2cdetect has found three i2c slaves (identical layout in both SFP's) > > at addresses 0x50, 0x51 and 0x56. > > What are they? EEPROM, DDM and "MDIO over i2c" ? > > The SFP's likely lack a proper SFP MSA data structure. > > 0x50 and 0x51 are EEPROM

Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

2018-03-20 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
I've taken a look inside the two SFP's. http://support.fccps.cz/download/adv/frr/ptp/inside_sfps.zip The uglier, bigger and likely older model (my SFP#2) contains two PCB's sandwiched, and the key chips are inside the sandwich. Thus, the photoes don't show much. The sexier SFP#1 = the one with

Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

2018-03-17 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
> > > Right now I've modded igb_init_i2c() to engage the bit-banging > > > i2c driver for the i210 too > > > > I don't think that will work. The datasheet for the i210 talks about > > two registers for I2C/MDIO which are not bit-banging. Only the i350 > > uses bit-banging. > > > From the i210

Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

2018-03-17 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
On 17 Mar 2018 at 15:50, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:39:00AM +0100, Frantisek Rysanek wrote: > > On 16 Mar 2018 at 22:02, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > > Does ethtool -m show anything useful? > > > > > > > Not much. "uns

Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

2018-03-17 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
On 16 Mar 2018 at 22:02, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > Does ethtool -m show anything useful? > Not much. "unsupported". Probably the ioctl() is not implemented or something, I haven't investigated. Maybe I should. Right now I've modded igb_init_i2c() to engage the bit-banging i2c driver for the i210

Re: HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

2018-03-16 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
On 16 Mar 2018 at 19:42, Andrew Lunn wrote: > Hi Frantisek > > This seems a bit odd. The SFP cage only has i2c, not MDIO. It is > possible to carry MDIO over i2c, which is what is done when the SFP > module is copper, not fibre. But you are doing 100Base-FX, so fibre. > > The BCM5461 is a copper

HW question: i210 vs. BCM5461S over SGMII: no response from PHY to MDIO requests?

2018-03-16 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
Dear polite inhabitants of the "netdev" mailing list, this is for a skunkworks project at the fringe of my job... More of a DIY hobby thing :-) I'm tinkering and having fun. The wizards from linux-ptp have taught me how to use the i210 for precise timestamping, which works fine at all copper