[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <21770a39-a0f4-485c-b6d1-3fd250536159@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:54:25 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "mengyuanlou@...-swift.com" <mengyuanlou@...-swift.com>
Cc: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: phy: add keep_data_connection to
struct phydev
> Now Mac and phy in kernel is separated into two parts.
> There are some features need to keep data connection.
>
> Phy ——— Wake-on-Lan —— magic packets
>
> When NIC as a ethernet in host os and it also supports ncsi as a bmc network port at same time.
> Mac/mng —— LLDP/NCSI —— ncsi packtes
As far as i understand it, the host MAC is actually a switch, with the
BMC connected to the second port of the switch. Does the BMC care
about the PHY status? Does it need to know about link status? Does
the NCSI core on the host need to know about the PHY?
You might want to take a step back and think about this in general. Do
we need to extend the phylink core to support NCSI? Do we need an API
for NCSI?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists