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