Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/8] net: ethtool: pse-pd: Expand pse commands with the PSE PoE interface

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

On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 19:45:18 +0100
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:

> > @@ -143,6 +150,43 @@ ethnl_set_pse(struct ethnl_req_info *req_info, struct
> > genl_info *info) return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (!tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL] &&
> > +	    !tb[ETHTOOL_A_C33_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL])
> > +		return 0;  
> 
> -EINVAL? Is there a real use case for not passing either of them?

No indeed.

> > +
> > +	if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL] &&
> > +	    !(pse_get_types(phydev->psec) & PSE_PODL)) {
> > +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(info->extack,
> > +				    tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL],
> > +				    "setting PSE PoDL admin control not
> > supported");
> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +	}
> > +	if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_C33_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL] &&
> > +	    !(pse_get_types(phydev->psec) & PSE_C33)) {
> > +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(info->extack,
> > +				    tb[ETHTOOL_A_C33_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL],
> > +				    "setting PSE PoE admin control not
> > supported");  
> 
> This probably should be C33, not PoE?
> 
> I guess it depends on what the user space tools are using. 

Yes, I have hesitated on replacing that one.
If you prefer c33 in the log, I will change it in next version

Regards,
-- 
Köry Maincent, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com