RFC ethtool usage

RFC ethtool usage

[Don Fry]

One of the pieces of information that is useful for me when debugging
problems with the pcnet32 driver, is which chip version the problem
occurs with (79C973, 79C976, etc).

Since the chip has no firmware, how badly would I be flamed, if I
modified the driver to return the string (which is currently printed
on boot), as the 'firmware-version'?

--- orig.pcnet32.c      Mon May  2 15:12:02 2005
+++ pcnet32.c   Mon May  2 15:13:38 2005
@@ -559,6 +559,7 @@ static void pcnet32_get_drvinfo(struct n
 
     strcpy (info->driver, DRV_NAME);
     strcpy (info->version, DRV_VERSION);
+    strncpy(info->fw_version, lp->name, sizeof(info->fw_version) - 1);
     if (lp->pci_dev)
 	strcpy (info->bus_info, pci_name(lp->pci_dev));
     else

So the output looked like:
$ ethtool -i eth0
driver: pcnet32
version: 1.30j
firmware-version: PCnet/PRO 79C976
bus-info: 0000:00:01.0
$ 

-- 
Don Fry
brazilnut@us.ibm.com

Re: RFC ethtool usage

[Jeff Garzik]

Don Fry wrote:
> One of the pieces of information that is useful for me when debugging
> problems with the pcnet32 driver, is which chip version the problem
> occurs with (79C973, 79C976, etc).
> 
> Since the chip has no firmware, how badly would I be flamed, if I
> modified the driver to return the string (which is currently printed
> on boot), as the 'firmware-version'?
> 
> --- orig.pcnet32.c      Mon May  2 15:12:02 2005
> +++ pcnet32.c   Mon May  2 15:13:38 2005
> @@ -559,6 +559,7 @@ static void pcnet32_get_drvinfo(struct n
>  
>      strcpy (info->driver, DRV_NAME);
>      strcpy (info->version, DRV_VERSION);
> +    strncpy(info->fw_version, lp->name, sizeof(info->fw_version) - 1);
>      if (lp->pci_dev)
>  	strcpy (info->bus_info, pci_name(lp->pci_dev));
>      else
> 
> So the output looked like:
> $ ethtool -i eth0
> driver: pcnet32
> version: 1.30j
> firmware-version: PCnet/PRO 79C976
> bus-info: 0000:00:01.0

Convenient in the short term, but misleading in the long run, IMO.

Surely you can get this info from an ethtool register dump?

	Jeff

Re: RFC ethtool usage

[David S. Miller]

On Thu, 05 May 2005 22:32:43 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:

> Convenient in the short term, but misleading in the long run, IMO.
> 
> Surely you can get this info from an ethtool register dump?

I agree.  It might not be a bad idea to formalize this in some
generic "ethtool_chip_info" block, however.