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. "unsupported".
>
> static int igb_get_module_info(struct net_device *netdev,
> struct ethtool_modinfo *modinfo)
> {
> struct igb_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
> struct e1000_hw *hw = &adapter->hw;
> u32 status = 0;
> u16 sff8472_rev, addr_mode;
> bool page_swap = false;
>
> if ((hw->phy.media_type == e1000_media_type_copper) ||
> (hw->phy.media_type == e1000_media_type_unknown))
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> Suggests that the driver does not know you have a fibre module.
>
Good! I'll check this out.
Even if it means that I have to hack the "sequence of initialization"
in the flow of driver code... (again.)
> > 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 datasheet, page 477:
chapter 8.17.9 "SFP I2C Parameters" - reg. I2CPARAMS (0x102C; R/W)
bit 8 "I2CBB_EN" = I2C bit-bang enable.
And about 6 more bits for SDA and SCL direction, input and output.
Looking through existing code of the bit-banging callbacks for i350,
their function would seem identical between the i210 and i350.
I may check the bit definition macros again, if the scope shows
nothing.
If the HW implementation of the I2C protocol doesn't work for some
reason, I can as well try bit-banging it.
Thanks for your continued input :-)
Frank
