From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Sebastien Rannou <mxs@sbrk.org>,
Arnaud Ebalard <arno@natisbad.org>,
Stas Sergeev <stsp@users.sourceforge.net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] of_mdio: add new DT property 'autoneg' for fixed-link
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:02:45 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55A032F5.8020801@list.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55A02D90.8090903@gmail.com>
10.07.2015 23:39, Florian Fainelli пишет:
>> - in-band status is an implementation delail, and it is
>> specific to a particular protocols. If you request the
>> in-band status for some protocol that doesn't support
>> it, perhaps you should get -EINVAL, because such a
>> config makes no sense. With autonegotiation, the rules
>> are not that strict: it can be "unimplemented", which doesn't
>> necessary mean nonsense in the config.
> So by specifying "autoneg", you are not specific about the kind of
> auto-negotiation protocol available, which is precisely my point: you
> need to go down to that level of detail for this to be useful. So maybe
> something like:
>
> autoneg = "in-band-status" would actually be a better thing in terms of
> description because then you would tell what can be made available/working?
I would agree with this if your argument below is true (see below).
>> - autonegotiation is a wider term, and may be implemented
>> by some other means than the in-band status (which is
>> probably impossible for a fixed-link though).
>>
>> - In the terms that the driver uses, it is autonegotiation, eg
>> MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG. And when you go down
>> the implementation details, you see MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE,
>> which is just one AN bit of many.
> But arguably, there could be another auto-negotiation method, which is
> not in-band status related, which means that you would need a way to
> distinguish between using in-band status, or using something else or
> nothing, would not you?
"something else" is a big question here.
Can you think of _any_ other way that is both not an MDIO
(suits to fixed-link) and not an in-band?
If the answer is yes (even theoretically), then
autoneg = "in-band" | "off"
may make sense. Otherwise boolean just looks enough.
If we would implement autoneg outside of the fixed-link,
then its semantic would likely be
autoneg = "mdio" | "in-band" | "off"
But the fact that we put it under fixed-link where only a
single AN possibility exist, may probably be underlined by
a semantic specific to fixed-link.
One may also argue that
autoneg = "any-possible-autoneg-that-works" is better than
specifying it explicitly, which is exactly what the boolean does.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-10 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-10 16:38 [PATCH v2 0/2] net: enable inband link state negotiation only when explicitly requested Stas Sergeev
2015-07-10 16:41 ` [PATCH 1/3] fixed_phy: handle link-down case Stas Sergeev
2015-07-10 20:44 ` Florian Fainelli
2015-07-10 21:14 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-07-11 0:15 ` Florian Fainelli
2015-07-11 8:58 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-07-10 16:43 ` [PATCH 2/3] of_mdio: add new DT property 'autoneg' for fixed-link Stas Sergeev
2015-07-10 18:37 ` Florian Fainelli
2015-07-10 20:08 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-07-10 20:39 ` Florian Fainelli
2015-07-10 21:02 ` Stas Sergeev [this message]
2015-07-11 0:22 ` Florian Fainelli
2015-07-11 9:15 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-07-10 16:45 ` [PATCH 3/3] mvneta: use inband status only when explicitly enabled Stas Sergeev
2015-07-10 20:31 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] net: enable inband link state negotiation only when explicitly requested Florian Fainelli
2015-07-10 20:45 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-07-13 9:54 ` Sebastien Rannou
2015-07-13 9:59 ` Stas Sergeev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55A032F5.8020801@list.ru \
--to=stsp@list.ru \
--cc=arno@natisbad.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=galak@codeaurora.org \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mxs@sbrk.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=stsp@users.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).