[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200528171751.jea5p5qxmeqsstdv@lion.mk-sys.cz>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 19:17:51 +0200
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Amit Cohen <amitc@...lanox.com>, mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>,
"o.rempel@...gutronix.de" <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Link down reasons
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:54:24PM +0200, Petr Machata wrote:
> In another e-mail you suggested this:
>
> Link detected: no (cable issue)
>
> But if the link just silently falls back to 100Mbps, there would never
> be an opportunity for phy to actually report a down reason. So there
> probably is no way for the phy layer to make use of this particular
> down reason.
Perhaps we could use more general name than "link down reason", e.g.
"extended state", and it could be reported even if the link is still up
(if there is something to report).
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists