[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e0b143dc-ca7e-4762-bd0b-3acffad0932b@lunn.ch>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 19:45:18 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Russ Weight <russ.weight@...ux.dev>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Dent Project <dentproject@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/8] net: ethtool: pse-pd: Expand pse
commands with the PSE PoE interface
> @@ -143,6 +150,43 @@ ethnl_set_pse(struct ethnl_req_info *req_info, struct genl_info *info)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> }
>
> + if (!tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL] &&
> + !tb[ETHTOOL_A_C33_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL])
> + return 0;
-EINVAL? Is there a real use case for not passing either of them?
> +
> + if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL] &&
> + !(pse_get_types(phydev->psec) & PSE_PODL)) {
> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(info->extack,
> + tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL],
> + "setting PSE PoDL admin control not supported");
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> + if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_C33_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL] &&
> + !(pse_get_types(phydev->psec) & PSE_C33)) {
> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(info->extack,
> + tb[ETHTOOL_A_C33_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL],
> + "setting PSE PoE admin control not supported");
This probably should be C33, not PoE?
I guess it depends on what the user space tools are using.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists