| 1 Jun 2025 |
 emily | 2.5GBASE-T is real, it's 2500BASE-X that's weird, AIUI. | 11:53:40 |
| emily | I assume the mobos will have chips that turn it into whatever messed up vendor variant of 2500BASE-X the chips support. | 11:54:19 |
 magic_rb | Whats the difference? | 11:54:20 |
| emily | okay that's a good question. my read has been "-X is the raw signals passed through by transceivers etc." but I guess it's actually an umbrella term and 2.5GBASE-T should morally be part of 2500BASE-X? | 11:55:12 |
| emily | I don't know why 2.5GBASE-T would be more interoperable than 2500BASE-X from SFP+s. I don't know anything. K900 is the one who knows :P | 11:55:37 |
 K900 | Hmm actually looking closer at the kernel | 11:57:02 |
| magic_rb | I wonder if one us should do a nixcon talk on the bpi-r4 and nixos routers | 11:57:17 |
| emily | fwiw if anyone knows for sure of an SFP+ that can do all of these and that has power consumption equal to or lower than the BCM84891L chip I will buy it instantly | 11:57:19 |
| K900 | I'm getting ideas for potentially more crimes | 11:57:21 |
| magic_rb | Could be kinda cool | 11:57:22 |
| emily | fwiw there are already hack patches in the various bpi-r4 trees to handle 2500BASE-X | 11:57:37 |
| emily | by disabling "inband"(? no idea what that is) and stuff | 11:57:42 |
| K900 | And also I'm pretty sure the PCS subsystem is just Wrong | 11:57:43 |
| emily | apparently it's broken with autoneg but not if you don't use autoneg? | 11:57:46 |
| K900 | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
fwiw there are already hack patches in the various bpi-r4 trees to handle 2500BASE-X Uhh got a link | 11:57:53 |
| emily | people have definitely gotten 2.5G to work | 11:57:56 |
| emily | ugh I'll dig it up :P | 11:58:02 |
| K900 | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
apparently it's broken with autoneg but not if you don't use autoneg? It's not broken with autoneg, it does not have the concept of autoneg | 11:58:05 |
| emily | wait what | 11:58:12 |
| emily | it can definitely autoneg for some rates at least | 11:58:17 |
| K900 | But the phylink subsystem as implemented doesn't understand that | 11:58:24 |
| K900 | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
it can definitely autoneg for some rates at least 2500base-x is what doesn't have the concept of autoneg | 11:58:46 |
| emily | hey do you remember when I was like, what's a good router?, and the reply was put NixOS on the BPI-R4 it's a no-brainer it just works | 11:58:52 |
| K900 | It's not supposed to be autonegotiated because it's supposed to be a static transceiver | 11:59:05 |
| K900 | That just identifies to the host with normal SFP capability bits | 11:59:31 |
| emily | don't buy TP-Link you'll get compromised you gotta own your network gateway buy this development board with no RF shielding that offloads everything to opaque proprietary vendor firmware blobs anyway | 11:59:31 |
| emily | just want you all to know that I'll never forgive you | 11:59:40 |
| magic_rb | :D | 11:59:53 |
| K900 | And then the host shoves raw whatever down the wire | 11:59:54 |
| emily | (okay I forgive K900 for giving the vital caveat that it's jank) | 11:59:55 |
