On 28/09/18 17:45, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Now is a good time to change the API, since we are moving to a netlink
> socket. Which is why these questions were asked in the first place...
OK, well, I've posted sfc's semantics and view-from-the-hardware*; now
patiently waiting for other NIC vendors to c
> I see where you're coming from, but if people start needing to manually
> configure FEC on their consumer devices, possibly we have bigger
> problems.
Yes, i agree with that. For the consumer market, SFPs needs to grow up
and start doing full and reliable auto-neg, just like copper Ethernet.
On 28/09/18 16:39, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> I wonder how true that will be in 5 years time, about reading the
> manual? SFP sockets are starting to appear in consumer devices. There
> are some Marvell SoC reference boards with SFP and SFP+. Broadcom also
> have some boards with SFP. With time, SFP will
> For us, those semantics make sense (our HW has a notion of 'supported'
> and 'requested' bits for each FEC type for each of local-device, cable
> and link-partner, and uses the strongest FEC mode that's supported by
> everyone and requested by anyone); but if something else is a better fit
>
On 26/09/18 09:47, Ariel Almog wrote:
> I was won
Truncated sentence? ("... wondering"?)
> I find the ability to set off, auto and specific FEC mode in the same
> command confusing.
I didn't try to define semantics here since each driver currently does
something slightly different. Probably the
> --- a/ethtool.c
> +++ b/ethtool.c
> @@ -4967,20 +4967,48 @@ static int do_set_phy_tunable(struct cmd_context
> *ctx)
>static int fecmode_str_to_type(const char *str)
> {
> + if (!strcasecmp(str, "auto"))
> + return ETHTOOL_FEC_AUTO;
> + if (!strcasecmp(str, "off"))
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 04:38:27PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 19/09/18 15:41, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > I'm sorry I didn't notice this before the patch was accepted but as it's
> > not in a release yet, maybe it's still not too late.
> >
> > Could I suggest to make the syntax consistent with ot
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 05:33:38PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > One loosely related question: how sure can we be that we are never going
> > to need more than 32 bits for FEC encodings? Is it something completely
> > hypothetical or is it something that could happen in the future?
> >
> Hi Michal
On 19/09/18 15:41, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> I'm sorry I didn't notice this before the patch was accepted but as it's
> not in a release yet, maybe it's still not too late.
>
> Could I suggest to make the syntax consistent with other options?
I didn't realise ethtool had any patterns to be consistent
> One loosely related question: how sure can we be that we are never going
> to need more than 32 bits for FEC encodings? Is it something completely
> hypothetical or is it something that could happen in the future?
>
Hi Michal
Hopefully we have moved to a netlink socket by that time :-)
I recen
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 06:54:57PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> Of the three drivers that currently support FEC configuration, two (sfc
> and cxgb4[vf]) accept configurations with more than one bit set in the
> feccmd.fec bitmask. (The precise semantics of these combinations vary.)
> Thus, this p
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 06:54:57PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> Of the three drivers that currently support FEC configuration, two (sfc
> and cxgb4[vf]) accept configurations with more than one bit set in the
> feccmd.fec bitmask. (The precise semantics of these combinations vary.)
> Thus, this p
Of the three drivers that currently support FEC configuration, two (sfc
and cxgb4[vf]) accept configurations with more than one bit set in the
feccmd.fec bitmask. (The precise semantics of these combinations vary.)
Thus, this patch adds the ability to specify such combinations through a
comma-s
13 matches
Mail list logo
