[email protected] writes: > From: "S.Teruyama" <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: S.Teruyama <[email protected]> > --- > .../pending-5.4/771-net-sfp-skip-hpowr-if-no-revision.patch | 12 > ++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 > target/linux/generic/pending-5.4/771-net-sfp-skip-hpowr-if-no-revision.patch > > diff --git > a/target/linux/generic/pending-5.4/771-net-sfp-skip-hpowr-if-no-revision.patch > > b/target/linux/generic/pending-5.4/771-net-sfp-skip-hpowr-if-no-revision.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..ffcf5ab > --- /dev/null > +++ > b/target/linux/generic/pending-5.4/771-net-sfp-skip-hpowr-if-no-revision.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ > +@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ > +--- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c > ++++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c > +@@ -1590,6 +1590,8 @@ static int sfp_module_parse_power(struct > + > + static int sfp_sm_mod_hpower(struct sfp *sfp, bool enable) > + { > ++ if (sfp->id.ext.sff8472_compliance == SFP_SFF8472_COMPLIANCE_NONE) > ++ return 0; > + u8 val; > + int err; > +
This looks like a workaround for a specific buggy module. Is that correct? Why not update sfp_module_parse_power() instead so you can skip the HPOWER state completely? And add an appropriate warning about this unexpected combination of options and sff8472_compliance. In any case, that "if" is misplaced. Your compiler should warn about it. Bjørn _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
