From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C460EC33CA2 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:26:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953E02077C for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:26:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=armlinux.org.uk header.i=@armlinux.org.uk header.b="SmA8To5t" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727365AbgAJK0L (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 05:26:11 -0500 Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:39454 "EHLO pandora.armlinux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727168AbgAJK0L (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 05:26:11 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armlinux.org.uk; s=pandora-2019; h=Sender:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=YIlXW7/5g1ETyYGbWR4L/mO1zapA9WeE+RHGDT6A3Ss=; b=SmA8To5tlGYzL7vawCUA1oGd9 G9OLwhUz06IUKdTPEw1TZeJD/n+NJw5pKf1UytnAMyIJ6L9hiM+ICw7tB9njUTwxnvRxvENmvsnoy bq5sZgrbN/lctvL8KM3+vd4lbLUQhglS3jKmvEBVNygNWPWscKAAN1wyDuZ5/5YtWtjhIFhFnAmLx 8Xn0kKgOKOYo+/0BtjzboWHwwxOdHz6I6ZEGdwVRkYFLHR44kuSCoZxZp0cQCNLXdoPelFKYRtfM4 WCuBHisbkvVDAYniGZTUIiS9PjrF3178I/T49fE1ksw/idDlAsJWldsQOjTakd03JFP+i4nZtzL3Z v6oYdGTsg==; Received: from shell.armlinux.org.uk ([2001:4d48:ad52:3201:5054:ff:fe00:4ec]:53038) by pandora.armlinux.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iprUW-0002PJ-0v; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:26:08 +0000 Received: from linux by shell.armlinux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1iprUV-0001QE-Cd; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:26:07 +0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:26:07 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin To: =?utf-8?B?0b3SieG2rOG4s+KEoA==?= Cc: Andrew Lunn , netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [drivers/net/phy/sfp] intermittent failure in state machine checks Message-ID: <20200110102607.GY25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> References: <20200109155809.GQ25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <20200109174322.GR25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <7ebee7c5-4bf3-134d-bc57-ea71e0bdfc60@gmx.net> <20200109215903.GV25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <20200109231034.GW25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <727cea4e-9bff-efd2-3939-437038a322ad@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:18:41AM +0000, ѽ҉ᶬḳ℠ wrote: > On 09/01/2020 23:50, ѽ҉ᶬḳ℠ wrote: > > Maybe I should just try finding a module that is declared SPF MSA > > conform... > > Actually, the vendors declares > (https://www.allnet.de/en/allnet-brand/produkte/neuheiten/p/-0c35cc9ea9/): > > *ALLNET ALL4781-VDSL2-SFP* is a VDSL2 SFP modem that interconnects with > Gateway Processor by using a MSA (MultiSource Agreement) compliant hot > pluggable electrical interface. > > Ok, "a MSA" does not explicitly state/imply SFP MSA but what other MSA could > that be? > If it is indeed SFP MSA conform the issue should not happen. Unless it is > just marketing speak and does not hold true. Everyone claims that their SFP is MSA compliant, even when the module: 1) takes 40-50 seconds after deasserting TX_DISABLE to initialise and deassert TX_FAULT, when the SFP MSA explicitly states a limit of 300ms (t_init) for TX_FAULT to deassert. 2) EEPROM does not respond for 50 seconds after plugging in, where the SFP MSA explicitly states 300ms (t_serial) maximum. 3) EEPROM contains incorrect data, for example: - indicating the module has a LC connector, yet it has an RJ45, or vice versa. - indicating NRZ encoding for an ethernet SFP, where it should be 8b10b or 64b66b encoding. - indicating a single data rate, or even the wrong data rate, when the module is documented as supporting other rates. - indicating an extended compliance technology that it doesn't support, presumably originally chosen when the number was unallocated by SFF-8024. - claiming to support 1000BASE-SX, a fiber standard, when the module is actually for VDSL2 over copper. ... etc ... So, I tend to ignore "SFP MSA compliant" whenever I see it; it is mostly meaningless. Yes, there are modules out there which are compliant, but those that claim compliance but aren't make the claim meaningless for everyone. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up