[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZnZb1rG-ePCyoqlU@pengutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 07:06:30 +0200
From: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
To: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dent Project <dentproject@...uxfoundation.org>,
kernel@...gutronix.de, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/7] net: ethtool: pse-pd: Expand C33 PSE
status with class, power and extended state
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 06:29:15PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 21:55:25 +0200
> Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:47:12PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > Mmh not really indeed, maybe we can put it in error_condition substate?
> >
> > I'm not sure how this error can help user, if even we do not understand
> > what is says. May be map everything what is not clear right not to
> > unsupported error value. This give us some time to communicate with
> > vendor and prevent us from making pointless UAPi?
>
> Is it ok for you if I use this substate for unsupported value:
> ETHTOOL_C33_PSE_EXT_SUBSTATE_ERROR_CONDITION_UNKNOWN_PORT_STATUS
> or do you prefer another one.
Ack, sounds good.
> > > Should I put it under MPS substate then?
> >
> > If my understand is correct, then yes. Can you test it? Do you have PD
> > with adjustable load?
>
> Yes I will test it.
Thx!
Regards,
Oleksij
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists