[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250303171226.4fb78c99@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 17:12:26 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Cc: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet
<corbet@....net>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Rob Herring
<robh@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Simon Horman
<horms@...nel.org>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King
<linux@...linux.org.uk>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor
Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Kyle Swenson <kyle.swenson@....tech>, Dent
Project <dentproject@...uxfoundation.org>, kernel@...gutronix.de, Maxime
Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 06/12] net: pse-pd: Add support for budget
evaluation strategies
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 14:40:51 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote:
> > Ok, I assume we are talking about different things. I mean - not port
> > specific configurations and diagnostic, will have different interface.
> >
> > BUDGET_EVAL_STRAT is port specific. HP and Cisco implement it as port
> > specific. PD692x0 Protocol manual describe it as port specific too:
> > 3.3.6 Set BT Port Parameters
> > Bits [3..0]—BT port PM mode
> > 0x0: The port power that is used for power management purposes is
> > dynamic (Iport x Vmain).
> > 0x1: The port power that is used for power management purposes is port
> > TPPL_BT.
> > 0x2: The port power that is used for power management purposes is
> > dynamic for non LLDP/CDP/Autoclass ports and TPPL_BT for
> > LLDP/CDP/Autoclass ports. 0xF: Do not change settings.
>
> I don't really understand how that can be port specific when the power budget is
> per PD69208 manager. Maybe I am missing information here.
+1
> > So, I assume, critical components are missing anyway.
>
> As we are not supporting the budget method configured by the user in this
> series, I agreed we should not add any uAPI related to it that could be broken
> or confusing later.
>
> I will remove it and send v6.
v6 sounds like a good idea.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists