Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] ethtool: Add link down reason callback

[Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:23:17AM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
> >> The I2C bus that's connected to this module (interface).
> >> We can add another reason for MDIO BUS errors or merge to one BUS error reason.
> >>>> +	ETHTOOL_LINK_UNSUPP_EEPROM, /* Unsupported EEPROM */
> >>> Which EEPROM?
> >> Module EEPROM.
> > Which module? This is all very vague. Some of the Marvell 10G PHYs
> > have an EEPROM to boot from, for example. Would that count? Or are you
> > talking about the SFP 'EEPROM', which is not actually an EEPROM, in
> > that it is not Electrically Erasable, not is it a ROM, since things
> > like temperature changes with time.
> 

> I am referring to the optical/electrical module EEPROM which is
> exposed through standard interface such as SFF 8472. Might not be an
> actual EEPROM but that's how the SFF committee decided to refer to
> it :).

Right, so at a minimum, put a comment: The following properties
referring to the optical/electrical module EEPROM which is exposed
through standard interface such as SFF 8472.

That makes it a lot less ambiguous.

> 
> >
> >>>> +	ETHTOOL_LINK_OVERTEMP, /* Over temperature */
> >>>> +	ETHTOOL_LINK_PWR_BUDGET_EXC, /* Power budget exceeded */
> >>>> +	ETHTOOL_LINK_MODULE_ADMIN_DOWN, /* Module admin down */
> >>> It seems like these last 6 are all SFP issues? How about putting SFP
> >>> into the name?
> >> Might be a QSFP issue for example, we can put module in the name though.
> > What is the generic name of SFP, SFP+ QSFP, SFF?
> 
> AFAIK, the name is module.

And as a term, module is overloaded. If the standard is called SFF
8472, then i would suggest putting SFF in these macros.

This is all assuming we actually decide to expose this information
this way....

     Andrew