We have ethtool_ops, any thoughts on miitool_ops?

We have ethtool_ops, any thoughts on miitool_ops?

[David T Hollis]

If a driver is converted to use ethtool_ops, it does not seem to have 
the ability to support mii-tool any longer.  RedHat uses mii-tool to 
check for link before running dhclient so that you don't have to wait 
forever for dhclient to timeout if the connection is down (laptops, 
etc).  The typical way to support mii tool was to A) handle that case in 
the ethtool and call another big switch, or B) call the 
generic_mii_ioctl call with the mii struct to handle what you didn't 
handle under ethtool.    Some method similar to ethtool_ops would really 
be great.

Re: We have ethtool_ops, any thoughts on miitool_ops?

[Arjan van de Ven]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 463 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 04:14, David T Hollis wrote:
> If a driver is converted to use ethtool_ops, it does not seem to have 
> the ability to support mii-tool any longer.  RedHat uses mii-tool to 
> check for link before running dhclient so that you don't have to wait 
> forever for dhclient to timeout if the connection is down (laptops, 
> etc). 

this is legacy; the road to the future for this is ethtool + the link
status change notification stuff 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: We have ethtool_ops, any thoughts on miitool_ops?

[David S. Miller]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:50:17 +0200
Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 04:14, David T Hollis wrote:
> > If a driver is converted to use ethtool_ops, it does not seem to have 
> > the ability to support mii-tool any longer.  RedHat uses mii-tool to 
> > check for link before running dhclient so that you don't have to wait 
> > forever for dhclient to timeout if the connection is down (laptops, 
> > etc). 
> 
> this is legacy; the road to the future for this is ethtool + the link
> status change notification stuff 

Besides, the original claim is false.  You can still support all
the other ioctls however you want, even the MII ones, after
enabling ethtool_ops in a driver.

Re: We have ethtool_ops, any thoughts on miitool_ops?

[David T Hollis]

David S. Miller wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:50:17 +0200
>Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 04:14, David T Hollis wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>If a driver is converted to use ethtool_ops, it does not seem to have 
>>>the ability to support mii-tool any longer.  RedHat uses mii-tool to 
>>>check for link before running dhclient so that you don't have to wait 
>>>forever for dhclient to timeout if the connection is down (laptops, 
>>>etc). 
>>>      
>>>
>>this is legacy; the road to the future for this is ethtool + the link
>>status change notification stuff 
>>    
>>
>
>Besides, the original claim is false.  You can still support all
>the other ioctls however you want, even the MII ones, after
>enabling ethtool_ops in a driver.
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>  
>
Thanks for the pointer.  I didn't realize I could still have the old 
ioctl handler and just not worry about the ethool portion of it.