[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c6258afd-2631-4e5d-ab25-6b2b7e2f4df4@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:39:10 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, idosch@...dia.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
kuba@...nel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 0/3] ethtool: Max power support
> This is something my current design supports I think. Using
> ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_MAX_POWER_SET user can get what cage supports
> and change it.
> This could be done using ethtool_module_power_mode_policy I think.
All these 'I think' don't give me a warm fuzzy feeling this is a well
thought out and designed uAPI.
I assume you have ethtool patches for your new netlink attributes. So
show us the real usage. Start with an SFP in its default lower power
mode. Show us the commands to display the current status. Allocate it
more power, tell the module it can use more power, and then show us
the status after the change has been made.
Then lower the power to that cage and assign the power to a different
cage.
This is something you can later reuse in the 0/X patch describing the
big picture of what the patchset does, and it will guide others who
want to implement the same API in the Linux SFP driver, or other MAC
drivers.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists