Re: PoE support

["Köry Maincent" <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 13:06:37 +0200
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> > What do you think? Do you think of a better way?  
> 
> By defining UAPI for PoDL/PoE I decided to follow IEEE 802.3
> specification as close as possible for following reasons:
> - we should be backwards and forwards compatible. IEEE 802.3 is always
>   extended, some existing objects and name spaces can be extended
>   withing the specification. If we will merge some of them, it may get
>   challenging to make it properly again.
> - PoDL and PoE have separate attributes and actions withing the
> specification. 
> - If we follow the spec, it is easier to understand for all who need to
>   implement or extend related software
> - I can imagine some industrial device implementing PoDL/PoE on same
>   port. We should be able to see what is actually active.
> 
> IMO, it is better not to mix PoDL and PoE name spaces and keep it as
> close as possible to the IEEE 802.3.
> Same is about ethtool interface. 

Ok, it will add more code duplication but indeed, it will be more flexible
for future standard evolution. I will go for this solution then.