[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25b7fce6-49f9-bd54-5c12-c72298d107c1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:24:32 +0200
From: Gal Pressman <galp.dev@...il.com>
To: Vidya Sagar Ravipati <vidya@...ulusnetworks.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, linville@...driver.com, saeedm@...lanox.com,
galp@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, odedw@...lanox.com,
ariela@...lanox.com, Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com, tzahio@...lanox.com
Cc: roees@...lanox.com, aviadr@...lanox.com,
dustin@...ulusnetworks.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: ethtool: add support for forward error
correction modes
On 25/10/2016 05:50, Vidya Sagar Ravipati wrote:
> SET FEC option:
> root@tor: ethtool --set-fec swp1 encoding [off | RS | BaseR | auto] autoneg [off | on]
>
> Encoding: Types of encoding
> Off : Turning off any encoding
> RS : enforcing RS-FEC encoding on supported speeds
> BaseR : enforcing Base R encoding on supported speeds
> Auto : Default FEC settings for divers , and would represent
divers? :)
> asking the hardware to essentially go into a best effort mode.
>
> Here are a few examples of what we would expect if encoding=auto:
> - if autoneg is on, we are expecting FEC to be negotiated as on or off
> as long as protocol supports it
> - if the hardware is capable of detecting the FEC encoding on it's
> receiver it will reconfigure its encoder to match
> - in absence of the above, the configuration would be set to IEEE
> defaults.
Not sure I follow, why do we need an autoneg option if encoding type can be set to auto?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists