[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240104161416.05d02400@dellmb>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:14:16 +0100
From: Marek BehĂșn <kabel@...nel.org>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: ethtool ioctl ABI: preferred way to expand uapi structure
ethtool_eee for additional link modes?
Hello,
the legacy ioctls ETHTOOL_GSET and ETHTOOL_SSET, which pass structure
ethtool_cmd, were superseded by ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS and
ETHTOOL_SLINKSETTINGS.
This was done because the original structure only contains 32-bit words
for supported, advertising and lp_advertising link modes. The new
structure ethtool_link_settings contains member
s8 link_mode_masks_nwords;
and a flexible array
__u32 link_mode_masks[];
in order to overcome this issue.
But currently we still have only legacy structure ethtool_eee for EEE
settings:
struct ethtool_eee {
__u32 cmd;
__u32 supported;
__u32 advertised;
__u32 lp_advertised;
__u32 eee_active;
__u32 eee_enabled;
__u32 tx_lpi_enabled;
__u32 tx_lpi_timer;
__u32 reserved[2];
};
Thus ethtool is unable to get/set EEE configuration for example for
2500base-T and 5000base-T link modes, which are now available in
several PHY drivers.
We can remedy this by either:
- adding another ioctl for EEE settings, as was done with the GSET /
SSET
- using the original ioctl, but making the structure flexible (we can
replace the reserved fields with information that the array is
flexible), i.e.:
struct ethtool_eee {
__u32 cmd;
__u32 supported;
__u32 advertised;
__u32 lp_advertised;
__u32 eee_active;
__u32 eee_enabled;
__u32 tx_lpi_enabled;
__u32 tx_lpi_timer;
s8 link_mode_masks_nwords; /* zero if legacy 32-bit link modes */
__u8 reserved[7];
__u32 link_mode_masks[];
/* filled in if link_mode_masks_nwords > 0, with layout:
* __u32 map_supported[link_mode_masks_nwords];
* __u32 map_advertised[link_mode_masks_nwords];
* __u32 map_lp_advertised[link_mode_masks_nwords];
*/
};
this way we will be left with another 7 reserved bytes for future (is
this enough?)
What would you prefer?
Marek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists