From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH] sfp: allow cotsworks modules Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:51:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20180328165154.GQ10980@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> References: <1522233237.12357.96.camel@perches.com> <20180328104147.GO10980@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <1522253941.12357.109.camel@perches.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Joe Perches Return-path: Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:51126 "EHLO pandora.armlinux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751072AbeC1QwD (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:52:03 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1522253941.12357.109.camel@perches.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 09:19:01AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > 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. I'll stick a "Warning:" and "Error:" tag before them if you really want the rest of the message to be identically formatted - otherwise, when seeing reports from people's dmesg, there will be nothing to indicate which message was printed. -- 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