Re: [RFC PATCH] Ethtool style in kernel network driver configuration.

[Martin Fuzzey <mfuzzey@gmail.com>]

Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Who needs this feature?  Why not use ethtool in an initramfs?
>
>   
> Forcing speed and duplex is occasionally needed to work around a link
> partner that doesn't implement autonegotiation correctly.  I don't see
> that it should ever be needed in platform configuration.  If the driver
> doesn't detect the MAC/PHY capabilities correctly then the driver should
> be fixed.  Overriding the settings once will not prevent an unsupported
> mode being selected later.
>
>   
To summarize the recent points I made in the smc91x: forcing speed thread :

1) Setting up and maintaining an initramfs can increase the complexity
for embedded systems - it's another image file to build, distribute,
update to bootloader etc.

2) While I of course agree that broken drivers should be fixed, what
about broken hardware?
I currently have this situation on one of my boards - 100Mbps doesn't
work due to electrical issues (bad routing).
This board is already in the wild - if it is fixed one day it will be a
new hardware revision and the code will have to cope with both.
Sure the "right" way is to fix the hardware but that's not always
economically or logistically possible.
I suspect such situations are not uncommon in the embedded world.


Martin