On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:27:06PM +0200, Marek Behun wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 16:28:44 +0100
> Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 03:21:35PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > > FreeTel P.C30.2 and P.C30.3 may fail to report anything useful from
> > > their EEPROM.
On Fri, 8 May 2020 16:28:44 +0100
Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 03:21:35PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > FreeTel P.C30.2 and P.C30.3 may fail to report anything useful from
> > their EEPROM. They report correct nominal bitrate of 10300 MBd, but do
> > not report
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 03:21:35PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> FreeTel P.C30.2 and P.C30.3 may fail to report anything useful from
> their EEPROM. They report correct nominal bitrate of 10300 MBd, but do
> not report sfp_ct_passive nor sfp_ct_active in their ERPROM.
>
> These modules can also oper
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 05:30:06PM +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> On Thursday, May 7, 2020, Marek Behún wrote:
>
> > FreeTel P.C30.2 and P.C30.3 may fail to report anything useful from
> > their EEPROM. They report correct nominal bitrate of 10300 MBd, but do
> > not report sfp_ct_passive nor sfp
FreeTel P.C30.2 and P.C30.3 may fail to report anything useful from
their EEPROM. They report correct nominal bitrate of 10300 MBd, but do
not report sfp_ct_passive nor sfp_ct_active in their ERPROM.
These modules can also operate at 1000baseX and 2500baseX.
Signed-off-by: Marek Behún
Cc: Russel
