Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Dec 2022 11:22:09 +0100 | From | Oleksij Rempel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/4] net/ethtool: add netlink interface for the PLCA RS |
| |
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:03:58AM +0100, Piergiorgio Beruto wrote: > Hello Oleksij, and thank you for your review! > Please see my comments below. > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 07:00:57AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ethtool_netlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/ethtool_netlink.h > > > index aaf7c6963d61..81e3d7b42d0f 100644 > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/ethtool_netlink.h > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ethtool_netlink.h > > > @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ enum { > > > ETHTOOL_MSG_MODULE_SET, > > > ETHTOOL_MSG_PSE_GET, > > > ETHTOOL_MSG_PSE_SET, > > > + ETHTOOL_MSG_PLCA_GET_CFG, > > > + ETHTOOL_MSG_PLCA_SET_CFG, > > > + ETHTOOL_MSG_PLCA_GET_STATUS, > > > > > > /* add new constants above here */ > > > __ETHTOOL_MSG_USER_CNT, > > > @@ -97,6 +100,9 @@ enum { > > > ETHTOOL_MSG_MODULE_GET_REPLY, > > > ETHTOOL_MSG_MODULE_NTF, > > > ETHTOOL_MSG_PSE_GET_REPLY, > > > + ETHTOOL_MSG_PLCA_GET_CFG_REPLY, > > > + ETHTOOL_MSG_PLCA_GET_STATUS_REPLY, > > > + ETHTOOL_MSG_PLCA_NTF, > > > > > > /* add new constants above here */ > > > __ETHTOOL_MSG_KERNEL_CNT, > > > @@ -880,6 +886,25 @@ enum { > > > ETHTOOL_A_PSE_MAX = (__ETHTOOL_A_PSE_CNT - 1) > > > }; > > > > > > +/* PLCA */ > > > + > > > > Please use names used in the specification as close as possible and > > document in comments real specification names. > I was actually following the names in the OPEN Alliance SIG > specifications which I referenced. Additionally, the OPEN names are more > similar to those that you can find in Clause 147. As I was trying to > explain in other threads, the names in Clause 30 were sort of a workaround > because we were not allowed to add registers in Clause 45. > > I can change the names if you really want to, but I'm inclined to keep > it simple and "user-friendly". People using this technology are more > used to these names, and they totally ignore Clause 30. > > Please, let me know what you think.
A comment about name mapping to specification, spec version and reason to take one variants instead of other one will be enough Somewhat similar to what i did for PoDL. See ETHTOOL_A_PODL_* in Documentation/networking/ethtool-netlink.rst and include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h
It will help people who use spec to review or extend this UAPI.
> > > + > > > + /* add new constants above here */ > > > + __ETHTOOL_A_PLCA_CNT, > > > + ETHTOOL_A_PLCA_MAX = (__ETHTOOL_A_PLCA_CNT - 1) > > > +}; > > > > Should we have access to 30.16.1.2.2 acPLCAReset in user space? > I omitted that parameter on purpose. The reason is that again, we were > "forced" to do this in IEEE802.3cg, but it was a poor choice. I > understand purity of the specifications, but in the real-world where > PLCA is implemented in the PHY, resetting the PLCA layer independently > of the PCS/PMA is all but a good idea: it does more harm than good. As a > matter of fact, PHY vendors typically map the PLCA reset bit to the PHY > soft reset bit, or at least to the PCS reset bit. > > I'm inclined to keep this as-is and see in the future if and why someone > would need this feature. What you think?
Ok. Sounds good.
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 |
| |