[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:08:06 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Edwin Peer <edwin.peer@...adcom.com>
Cc: Danielle Ratson <danieller@...dia.com>,
Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
mlxsw <mlxsw@...dia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] ethtool: Get link mode in use instead
of speed and duplex parameters
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:14:05 -0800 Edwin Peer wrote:
> > > Yes, there would be multiple link modes that map to the same speed and
> > > lane combination, but that doesn't mean you need to accept them if the
> > > media doesn't match what's plugged in also. In the above scenario, the
> > > supported mask should not list SR because CR is physically plugged in.
> > > That way, the user knows what options are legal and the kernel knows
> > > what it can reject.
> >
> > If the modes depend on what's plugged in - what happens if cable gets
> > removed? We (you, Danielle, I) can agree what we think is best, but
> > history teaches us that doesn't matter in long run. We had a similar
> > conversation when it comes to FEC. There simply is no way for upstream
> > developers to review the behavior is correct.
>
> Given that supported is only defined in the context of autoneg today,
> once could still specify. But again, you raise a fair concern.
>
> The asymmetry in interface is still ugly though, you get to decide
> which ugly is worse. :P
Let's move with this series as is. We can see how prevalent the use of
link_mode is on get side first.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists