From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] mlx4_en: Reporting HW revision in ethtool -i Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:06:46 -0700 Message-ID: <20110323100646.2319e392@nehalam> References: <4D89B16F.4040008@mellanox.co.il> <1300889054.26693.527.camel@localhost> <953B660C027164448AE903364AC447D20705BE28@mtldag01.mtl.com> <1300895205.2638.0.camel@bwh-desktop> <953B660C027164448AE903364AC447D20705BF27@mtldag01.mtl.com> <1300896492.2638.13.camel@bwh-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Yevgeny Petrilin , "davem@davemloft.net" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Eugenia Emantayev To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:58208 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751323Ab1CWRGu (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:06:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1300896492.2638.13.camel@bwh-desktop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:08:12 +0000 Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 15:54 +0000, Yevgeny Petrilin wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 15:10 +0000, Yevgeny Petrilin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is an abuse of the ethtool_drvinfo::driver field. > > > > > > > > > > Your users can use lspci -v, can't they? > > > > > > > > > I don't think there is a problem here. > > > > We have always reported the HW model via Ethtool, we just expanded > > > the information > > > > we provide. > > > > Our users prefer to see the information in ethtool. > > > > > > Do you mean 'we documented ethtool -i as the way to get hardware > > > identification'? That would be a bug in your documentation. > > > > > > Ben. > > > > This is not what I mean, All the required information can be found in lspci, > > There are some requests to see part of this information also via ethtool > > As Stephen says, the issue here is consistency between drivers. > Sometimes you just have to say no to customer requests that you abuse a > standard API. > > You could perhaps include some sort of hardware type distinction in the > firmware version string, if it doesn't already incorporate that. The pci info is already in bus_info and that can be used by tools. Alternatively, many drivers splat revision/config info out to dmesg.