[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9318605b-6ddc-a093-52ad-76c18097c414@aquantia.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:29:26 +0000
From: Igor Russkikh <Igor.Russkikh@...antia.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Bezrukov <Dmitry.Bezrukov@...antia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/19] net: usb: aqc111: Introduce link
management
Hi Andrew,
>> aqc111_read_fw_version(dev, aqc111_data);
>> + aqc111_data->autoneg = AUTONEG_ENABLE;
>> + aqc111_data->advertised_speed = (usb_speed == USB_SPEED_SUPER) ?
>> + SPEED_5000 : SPEED_1000;
>
> USB 3 has a raw bandwidth of 5Gbps. But it is a shared bus. So you
> have no guaranteed you are actually going to get the needed bandwidth
> to support line rate.
>
> USB 2.0 only gives you 480Mbps. So it won't even give you the full
> 1G. So using the same reasoning for USB3, maybe you should limit it to
> 100Mbps?
>
> I personally would not apply restrictions on the PHY depending on what
> USB is being used.
First argument here is to reduce power consumption on USB2.
2.5G/5G uses OCSGMII/XFI serdes which consumes more power.
Of course in normal conditions usb2 is capable to feed that, but
the risk still exists on legacy usb2 hardware.
> This becomes more important when using SFPs. If i have an SFP peer
> which is expecting 2500Base-X, but because the device is plugged into
> USB 2 port it is forced to use 1000Base-X, it is not going to get
> link.
Do you mean here 2500Base-T? This particular device is an integrated
mac+phy, thus we can't easily link it with -X SFP endpoint.
Although its not a common usecase for the consumer dongle to connect to SFP
endpoints, think your comment is quite reasonable.
We'll clarify this internally.
Regards,
Igor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists