Hi Andrew!
I removed all the comments/constants/structs/functions that were
assuming the existence of page 0x10 and 0x11. I sent v3 to Ido (before
submitting it), he helped me test it and everything works fine. Please
let me know if there's anything else that should be changed.
Also, I just notic
On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 07:21:21PM +0300, Adrian Pop wrote:
> Hi Andrew!
>
> Should I resubmit v3 after I delete the code that has to do with page
> 0x10 and 0x11?
Yes please.
Andrew
Hi Andrew!
Should I resubmit v3 after I delete the code that has to do with page
0x10 and 0x11?
Adrian
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 21:08, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> Hi Adrian
>
> > +static void
> > +qsfp_dd_parse_diagnostics(const __u8 *id, struct qsfp_dd_diags *const sd)
> > +{
> > + __u16 rx_power_
Hi Adrian
> +static void
> +qsfp_dd_parse_diagnostics(const __u8 *id, struct qsfp_dd_diags *const sd)
> +{
> + __u16 rx_power_offset;
> + __u16 tx_power_offset;
> + __u16 tx_bias_offset;
> + __u16 temp_offset;
> + __u16 volt_offset;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < QS
The Common Management Interface Specification (CMIS) for QSFP-DD shares
some similarities with other form factors such as QSFP or SFP, but due to
the fact that the module memory map is different, the current ethtool
version is not able to provide relevant information about an interface.
This patch
