[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1258507421.2810.14.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:23:41 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 1/2] ethtool: Add PHY type to ethtool
get_drvinfo
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 16:41 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:56:57 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
> "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:13:24 -0800
> > > Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: PJ Waskiewicz <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
> > > >
> > > > Allow the PHY type to be passed from a driver to ethtool when
> > > > ethtool -i ethX is called. With newer network cards having SFP
> > > > and SFP+ PHY cages, this information can be useful, especially
> > > > if the NIC supports hot-swapping of the PHY modules.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > Maybe revive usage of connector port in ethtool rather than adding new API?
> > > It is already there but values are out of date with current hardware.
> >
> > You're referring to the MODE_GSET port settings? If so, I like this
> > approach, and will update my patches accordingly.
>
> Yes. cmd->port is always PORT_TP or PORT_FIBRE now but could be extended
> Likewise cmd->transceiver could be modified. I haven't seen an external transceiver
> since the old fat yellow cable with vampire taps (and that was 20 yrs ago).
It seems to me there should be a transceiver type code or codes for
connectors like SFP where the bulk of the transceiver is internal but
the optical part is an external module. SFP+ is a tricky case because
it also supports passive cables.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists