Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] RTNL: Add link-down reason reporting

2019-03-18 Thread Petr Machata
Andrew Lunn writes: >> The party with visibility into details of this process is the driver. > > In the general case, i would disagree with this. It is the PHY layer > which knows about these things. phylib and phylink. The MAC driver has > no idea, it just sees that the carrier is off. > > The

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] RTNL: Add link-down reason reporting

2019-03-15 Thread Andrew Lunn
> The party with visibility into details of this process is the driver. Hi Petr In the general case, i would disagree with this. It is the PHY layer which knows about these things. phylib and phylink. The MAC driver has no idea, it just sees that the carrier is off. There are however some driver

[RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] RTNL: Add link-down reason reporting

2019-03-15 Thread Petr Machata
In general, after a port is put administratively up, certain handshake protocols have to finish successfully, otherwise the port is left in a NO-CARRIER or DORMANT state. When that happens, it would be useful to communicate the reasons to the administrator, so that the problem that prevents the lin