The extended compliance code value SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER
(0x3) means either 4-lane 100G or single lane 25G.
Set 25000baseLR_Full mode supported in addition to the already set
100000baseLR4_ER4_Full, and handle it in sfp_select_interface.
This fixes detection of 25G capability for two SFP fiber modules:
- GigaLight GSS-SPO250-LRT
- FS SFP-25G23-BX20-I
Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com>
---
drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c
index b945d75966d5..2caa0e0c4ec8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c
@@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ static void sfp_module_parse_support(struct sfp_bus *bus,
case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_LR4_25GBASE_LR:
case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER:
phylink_set(modes, 100000baseLR4_ER4_Full);
+ phylink_set(modes, 25000baseLR_Full);
break;
case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_CR4:
phylink_set(modes, 100000baseCR4_Full);
@@ -342,7 +343,8 @@ phy_interface_t sfp_select_interface(struct sfp_bus *bus,
{
if (phylink_test(link_modes, 25000baseCR_Full) ||
phylink_test(link_modes, 25000baseKR_Full) ||
- phylink_test(link_modes, 25000baseSR_Full))
+ phylink_test(link_modes, 25000baseSR_Full) ||
+ phylink_test(link_modes, 25000baseLR_Full))
return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_25GBASER;
if (phylink_test(link_modes, 10000baseCR_Full) ||
--
2.43.0
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 16:07:38 +0200 Josua Mayer wrote: > @@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ static void sfp_module_parse_support(struct sfp_bus *bus, > case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_LR4_25GBASE_LR: > case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER: > phylink_set(modes, 100000baseLR4_ER4_Full); > + phylink_set(modes, 25000baseLR_Full); I _think_ the discussion here concluded that the patch is insufficient / DoA? Either way, I wanted to relay that AI code review points out we may also want to set __set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_25GBASER, interfaces) here: https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-review.html?id=c91c0f54-56d5-4356-89cd-b57cbb289495
On 19/01/2026 21:30, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 16:07:38 +0200 Josua Mayer wrote: >> @@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ static void sfp_module_parse_support(struct sfp_bus *bus, >> case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_LR4_25GBASE_LR: >> case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER: >> phylink_set(modes, 100000baseLR4_ER4_Full); >> + phylink_set(modes, 25000baseLR_Full); > I _think_ the discussion here concluded that the patch is insufficient > / DoA? Either way, I wanted to relay that AI code review points out > we may also want to set __set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_25GBASER, > interfaces) here: > > https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-review.html?id=c91c0f54-56d5-4356-89cd-b57cbb289495 > I concluded the following: 1. there is no confusion with qsfp / 4 serdes lanes 2. 25GBASER is indeed missing, because this case does not fallthrough. Something open for discussion is whether to handle SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_LR4_25GBASE_LR/_ER differently, e.g.: case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_LR4_25GBASE_LR: phylink_set(modes, 25000baseLR_Full); fallthrough; case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER: phylink_set(modes, 100000baseLR4_ER4_Full); __set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_25GBASER, interfaces); break; I.e. should the ER variant support 25000baseLR_Full?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 04:07:38PM +0200, Josua Mayer wrote: > The extended compliance code value SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER > (0x3) means either 4-lane 100G or single lane 25G. Is there a way to tell them apart? If it is a QSFP, it means 4-lane 100G? You can however split it into 4x 25GBASE_ER, if the MAC supports port spitting? If it is an SFP, it must mean 25GBASE_ER because the SFP only supports a single lane? > Set 25000baseLR_Full mode supported in addition to the already set > 100000baseLR4_ER4_Full, and handle it in sfp_select_interface. > > This fixes detection of 25G capability for two SFP fiber modules: > > - GigaLight GSS-SPO250-LRT > - FS SFP-25G23-BX20-I Are these SFPs or QSFPs? > Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com> > --- > drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c > index b945d75966d5..2caa0e0c4ec8 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c > @@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ static void sfp_module_parse_support(struct sfp_bus *bus, > case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_LR4_25GBASE_LR: > case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER: > phylink_set(modes, 100000baseLR4_ER4_Full); > + phylink_set(modes, 25000baseLR_Full); Given the question above, i'm wondering if it is as simple as this, or we need to look at the type of SFP? Andrew
On 18/01/2026 18:01, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 04:07:38PM +0200, Josua Mayer wrote: >> The extended compliance code value SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER >> (0x3) means either 4-lane 100G or single lane 25G. > Is there a way to tell them apart? The physical connectors are different, so we can know from the device-tree compatible string. For now sfp driver does not support qsfp. > > If it is a QSFP, it means 4-lane 100G? This is my suspicion, but I have not parsed real-world qsfp eeproms. > You can however split it into > 4x 25GBASE_ER, if the MAC supports port spitting? If it is an SFP, it > must mean 25GBASE_ER because the SFP only supports a single lane? Does it? I thought SR, ER and LR indicate distance not host interface lane count. Either way if you have a QSFP module, there is a single module with a single eeprom on a single connector of 4 lanes. When you have SFP module, there is a module / eeprom for each lane. > >> Set 25000baseLR_Full mode supported in addition to the already set >> 100000baseLR4_ER4_Full, and handle it in sfp_select_interface. >> >> This fixes detection of 25G capability for two SFP fiber modules: >> >> - GigaLight GSS-SPO250-LRT >> - FS SFP-25G23-BX20-I > Are these SFPs or QSFPs? SFP. > >> Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c >> index b945d75966d5..2caa0e0c4ec8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c >> @@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ static void sfp_module_parse_support(struct sfp_bus *bus, >> case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_LR4_25GBASE_LR: >> case SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER: >> phylink_set(modes, 100000baseLR4_ER4_Full); >> + phylink_set(modes, 25000baseLR_Full); > Given the question above, i'm wondering if it is as simple as this, or > we need to look at the type of SFP? I don't think we need to worry about QSFP at this time.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 07:30:20AM +0000, Josua Mayer wrote:
> On 18/01/2026 18:01, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 04:07:38PM +0200, Josua Mayer wrote:
> >> The extended compliance code value SFF8024_ECC_100GBASE_ER4_25GBASE_ER
> >> (0x3) means either 4-lane 100G or single lane 25G.
> > Is there a way to tell them apart?
> The physical connectors are different, so we can know from the
> device-tree compatible string.
>
> For now sfp driver does not support qsfp.
And likely will never do.
I did look at QSFP support due to the LX2160A SR board, and I did
scratch some code together, but I didn't get far with it:
(a) LX2160A is just not flexible enough to consider the possibilities
properly to implement support (no run-time reconfiguration of the
interface mode.)
(b) QSFPs can be used as a single interface, or as multiple interfaces.
There is no way that the SFP and phylink layers can cope with that
as they are currently structured.
(c) QSFP EEPROMs have a completely different structure to SFP EEPROMs.
(d) I couldn't see any way that the QSFP EEPROM distinguished between
e.g. a cable that had QSFP at one end and 4x SFP at the other vs
a cable that had QSFP at each end, thus making it impossible to
know whether 100G as 4 25G lanes would be possible.
(e) I'm aware that there's devlink which I believe can deal with some
of this "single network interface of 4 lanes" vs "four network
interfaces of 1 lane" configuration, but I've never used it, and
when I looked at it, it wasn't clear how. I have no hardware that
makes use of devlink to play with to find out.
Basically, QSFP support is something I have little knowledge of, there
is precious little on the 'net about its use, I have no hardware
experience with, and I don't see how it fits into Linux networking.
So I decided it would be a fools errand to attempt to implement
anything.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.