[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06f5880d-94e3-454e-b056-9bf2059a52fe@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:53:02 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
idosch@...dia.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 0/3] ethtool: Max power support
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 07:25:47AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:38:59 +0200 Wojciech Drewek wrote:
> > > Also, this is about the board, the SFP cage, not the actual SFP
> > > module? Maybe the word cage needs to be in these names?
> >
> > It's about cage. Thanks for bringing it to my attention because now I
> > see it might be misleading. I'm extending {set|show}-module command
> > but the changes are about max power in the cage. With that in mind
> > I agree that adding 'cage' to the names makes sense.
>
> Noob question, what happens if you plug a module with higher power
> needs into the cage?
https://www.optcore.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/QSFP-MSA.pdf
Section 3.2:
It is recommended that the host, through the management interface,
identify the power consumption class of the module before allowing the
module to go into high power mode.
So it should start in lower power mode. Table 7 suggests the module
can assume 1.5W, since that is the lowest power level.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists