On 15-06-01 02:46 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Arun Parameswaran <apara...@broadcom.com> > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:41:43 -0700 > >> It would be nice for the 'ethtool' to be flexible to support querying >> specific PHY irrespective of the net implementation, but that is being >> discussed in the other thread. > > Please stop arguing about this, it isn't valid. > > Your device is a switch, and therefore needs to be represented properly > with the proper number of net_device objects. > > Even more importantly, the ethtool API is established and you cannot > change these semantics without potentially breaking lots of applications > and libraries out there. > > Your change is reverted, and I will absolutely not entertain any > attempt to again change the semantics of this ethtool operation. > > Thanks. > I apologize if the patch broke any conventions, it was not my intend. I understand the implications on other programs that use the interface.
Just so that I don’t make this mistake in the future and to understand this better, does this mean that the 'phyad' parameter specified in the 'ethtool' command line is ignored ? Thanks Arun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
