On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 13:06:37 +0200
Oleksij Rempel [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

What do you think? Do you think of a better way?  

By defining UAPI for PoDL/PoE I decided to follow IEEE 802.3
specification as close as possible for following reasons:
- we should be backwards and forwards compatible. IEEE 802.3 is always
  extended, some existing objects and name spaces can be extended
  withing the specification. If we will merge some of them, it may get
  challenging to make it properly again.
- PoDL and PoE have separate attributes and actions withing the
specification. 
- If we follow the spec, it is easier to understand for all who need to
  implement or extend related software
- I can imagine some industrial device implementing PoDL/PoE on same
  port. We should be able to see what is actually active.

IMO, it is better not to mix PoDL and PoE name spaces and keep it as
close as possible to the IEEE 802.3.
Same is about ethtool interface. 

Ok, it will add more code duplication but indeed, it will be more flexible
for future standard evolution. I will go for this solution then.