On 28/11/16 09:56, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 11/28/2016 05:25 AM, Allan W. Nielsen wrote: > > From: Raju Lakkaraju <raju.lakkar...@microsemi.com> > > > > Add loopback in ethtool tunables to access PHY drivers. > > > > Ethtool Help: ethtool -h for PHY tunables > > ethtool --set-phy-tunable DEVNAME Set PHY tunable > > [ loopback off|near|far|extn ] > > ethtool --get-phy-tunable DEVNAME Get PHY tunable > > [ loopback ] > > > > Ethtool ex: > > ethtool --set-phy-tunable eth0 loopback near > > ethtool --set-phy-tunable eth0 loopback far > > ethtool --set-phy-tunable eth0 loopback extn > > ethtool --set-phy-tunable eth0 loopback off > > > > ethtool --get-phy-tunable eth0 loopback > > > > Signed-off-by: Raju Lakkaraju <raju.lakkar...@microsemi.com> > > Signed-off-by: Allan W. Nielsen <allan.niel...@microsemi.com> > > --- > > > +Near-End Loopback: > > +Transmitted data (TXD) is looped back in the PCS block onto the receive > > data > > +signal (RXD). When Near-End loopback enable, no data is transmitted over > > +the network. no data receive from the network. > > This is also known as the local loopback test mode, right? Yes - Traffic transmitted/generated by the host list loopback to the host instead of transmitting it on the wire.
> > + > > +Far-End Loopback: > > +This loopback is a special test mode to allow testing the PHY from link > > +partner side. In this mode data that is received from the link partner pass > > +through the PHY's receiver, looped back on the MII and transmitted back to > > +the link partner. > > And this is the remote loopback mode. Yes - Traffic receiwed on the "wire" is transmitted back on the wire. > > + > > +External Loopback: > > +An RJ45 loopback cable can be used to route the transmit signals an the > > +output of the trnsformer back to the receiver inputs and this loopback will > > +work at either 10 or 100 or 1000 Mbps speed. > > +RJ45 Loopback cable created by conncting pin 1 to pin 3 and connecting pin > > +2 to pin 6. > > OK, this name makes sense to me, but for the two other names, we need to > use a terminology that is clearer to the reader and/or people familiar > and targeted at using this feature (e.g: in a lab or during manufacturing). Sure, we can find better names and/or improve the documentation. But before jumping to that, then it is properly a good idea to agree on the overall concept. We will get back to the naming when we agree on the other parts. /Allan
