From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [e1000]: flow control on by default - good idea really? Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:35:40 -0400 Message-ID: <1161178540.5240.16.camel@jzny2> References: <44AC05A8.9030503@intel.com> <1152191018.5103.48.camel@jzny2> <20060706.235909.78729229.davem@davemloft.net> <1152275283.5341.144.camel@jzny2> <4533D594.2070908@intel.com> <1161090331.5555.10.camel@jzny2> <453544EF.4000502@intel.com> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se, john.ronciak@intel.com, greearb@candelatech.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, olel@ans.pl Return-path: Received: from mx03.cybersurf.com ([209.197.145.106]:36511 "EHLO mx03.cybersurf.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161033AbWJROcP (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:32:15 -0400 Received: from mail.cyberus.ca ([209.197.145.21]) by mx03.cybersurf.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1GaCSw-0001ro-Rw for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:32:18 -0400 To: Auke Kok In-Reply-To: <453544EF.4000502@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-17-10 at 14:02 -0700, Auke Kok wrote: > For now, we should really report the FC status in e1000 at link up time. Jamal: this > should help you out for now, I'll send something like this upstream later on. > Thanks - this puts you at par with the tg3 at least. On Tue, 2006-17-10 at 14:46 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: jamal > Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:05:31 -0400 > > > It sounds to me that ethttool needs to have this semantic fix. > > IOW, ethttool doesnt differentiate the two items: > > a) advertised parameters. > > b) link partner negotiated parameters. > > > > and instead #a becomes #b after negotiation. > > > > > > methinks this needs fixing. Dave? Jeff? > > The way I understand it the ethernet autonegotiation mechanisms don't > really give you a way to seperate these two things. > > Either you negotiate the link and flow control settings, or nothing. True - but I was thinking more of the state stored in the driver either by ethtool or some other part of the driver. If i remember correctly, Donald Beckers old mii tool was able to display "here's what you have configured the driver for link and flow control and these are what i advertise to link peers" and "here's what current negotiated link and flow control parameters with link peer" That distinction doesnt exist with ethtool. Or i am missing something. cheers, jamal