[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e6a62d6c-7c1e-4084-b5e7-f5ffa2a2da02@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 14:26:22 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 2/4] net: phylink: add EEE management
> I'm wondering if, rather than adding a bit to mac_capabilities, whether
> instead:
>
> 1) add eee_capabilities and re-use the existing MAC_CAP_* definitions
> to indicate what speeds the MAC supports LPI. This doesn't seem to
> solve (c).
> 2) add a phy interface bitmap indicating which interface modes support
> LPI generation.
>
> Phylib already has similar with its supported_eee link mode bitmap,
> which presumably MACs can knock out link modes that they know they
> wouldn't support.
O.K, I can probably make that work. None of the MAC drivers i've
looked at need this flexibility yet, but we can add it now.
I do however wounder if it should be called lpi_capabilities, not
eee_capabilities. These patches are all about making the core deal
with 99% of EEE. All the MAC driver needs to do is enable/disable
sending LPI and set the timer value. So we are really talking about
the MACs LPI capabilities.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists