Thread (10 messages) 10 messages, 5 authors, 2020-03-26

RFC: future of ethtool tunables (Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] ethtool: Add BroadRReach Master/Slave PHY tunable)

From: Michal Kubecek <hidden>
Date: 2020-03-25 16:50:02

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:17:35AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
Add a PHY tunable to select BroadRReach PHY Master/Slave mode.
IMHO this should be preceded by more general discussion about future of
ethtool tunables so I changed the subject and added people who were most
active in review of the ethtool netlink interface.

The way the ethtool tunables are designed rather feels like a workaround
for lack of extensibility of the ioctl interface. And at least in one
case (PFC stall timeout) it was actually the case:

  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAKHjkjkGWoeeGXBSNZCcAND3bYaNhna-q1UAp=8UeeuBAN1=fQ@mail.gmail.com

Thus it's natural to ask if we want to preserve the idea of assorted
tunables in the netlink interface and add more or if we rather prefer
adding new attributes and finding suitable place for existing tunables.
Personally, I like the latter more.

What might be useful, on the other hand, would be device specific
tunables: an interface allowing device drivers to define a list of
tunables and their types for each device. It would be a generalization
of private flags. There is, of course, the risk that we could end up
with multiple NIC vendors defining the same parameters, each under
a different name and with slightly different semantics.

Ideas and opinions are welcome.

Michal
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help