Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:01:43PM CET, edwin.p...@broadcom.com wrote: >On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 1:40 AM Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: > >> >Why can't this be implied by port break-out configuration? For higher >> >speed signalling modes like PAM4, what's the difference between a >> >port with unused lanes vs the same port split into multiple logical >> >ports? In essence, the driver could then always choose the slowest >> >> There is a crucial difference. Split port is configured alwasy by user. >> Each split port has a devlink instace, netdevice associated with it. >> It is one level above the lanes. > >Right, but the one still implies the other. Splitting the port implies fewer >lanes available. > >I understand the concern if the device cannot provide sufficient MAC >resources to provide for the additional ports, but leaving a net device >unused (with the option to utilize an additional, now spare, port) still >seems better to me than leaving lanes unused and always wasted.
I don't follow what exactly are you implying. Could you elaborate a bit more? > >Otherwise, the earlier suggestion of fully specifying the forced link >mode (although I don't think Andrew articulated it quite that way) >instead of a forced speed and separate lane mode makes most >sense. > >Regards, >Edwin Peer
