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.

> 
> > +                           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

Same applies.

-- 
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

Reply via email to