From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Romieu Subject: Re: r8169 auto speed down issue Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:20:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20130329072056.GA31269@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <4EECA12DD88643FD9006350514D96C8E@realtek.com.tw> <20130328231955.GA26182@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <83FC3118294143DC81063B29EF570FC1@realtek.com.tw> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bowgotsai@google.com, "'Ryankao'" To: hayeswang Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83FC3118294143DC81063B29EF570FC1@realtek.com.tw> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org hayeswang : > Francois Romieu [mailto:romieu@fr.zoreil.com] > [...] > > Your description suggests that testing against the link > > partner ability to work at 10M instead of testing for ^^^^^^^^^^ -> "and" > > tp->link_ok could be good enough. As a policy we may assume that capabilities of the link partner won't change after a link loss event - and there is currently no way we can change this policy - but it won't always work as expected (especially if "expected == automagically"). [...] > Furthermore, should it not speed down without linking, even though the cable > would be plugged after suspending or shutdowning? I don't get your point. Can you reformulate ? -- Ueimor