From: "Marek Behún" <kabel@kernel.org>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Subject: ethtool ioctl ABI: preferred way to expand uapi structure ethtool_eee for additional link modes?
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:14:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240104161416.05d02400@dellmb> (raw)
Hello,
the legacy ioctls ETHTOOL_GSET and ETHTOOL_SSET, which pass structure
ethtool_cmd, were superseded by ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS and
ETHTOOL_SLINKSETTINGS.
This was done because the original structure only contains 32-bit words
for supported, advertising and lp_advertising link modes. The new
structure ethtool_link_settings contains member
s8 link_mode_masks_nwords;
and a flexible array
__u32 link_mode_masks[];
in order to overcome this issue.
But currently we still have only legacy structure ethtool_eee for EEE
settings:
struct ethtool_eee {
__u32 cmd;
__u32 supported;
__u32 advertised;
__u32 lp_advertised;
__u32 eee_active;
__u32 eee_enabled;
__u32 tx_lpi_enabled;
__u32 tx_lpi_timer;
__u32 reserved[2];
};
Thus ethtool is unable to get/set EEE configuration for example for
2500base-T and 5000base-T link modes, which are now available in
several PHY drivers.
We can remedy this by either:
- adding another ioctl for EEE settings, as was done with the GSET /
SSET
- using the original ioctl, but making the structure flexible (we can
replace the reserved fields with information that the array is
flexible), i.e.:
struct ethtool_eee {
__u32 cmd;
__u32 supported;
__u32 advertised;
__u32 lp_advertised;
__u32 eee_active;
__u32 eee_enabled;
__u32 tx_lpi_enabled;
__u32 tx_lpi_timer;
s8 link_mode_masks_nwords; /* zero if legacy 32-bit link modes */
__u8 reserved[7];
__u32 link_mode_masks[];
/* filled in if link_mode_masks_nwords > 0, with layout:
* __u32 map_supported[link_mode_masks_nwords];
* __u32 map_advertised[link_mode_masks_nwords];
* __u32 map_lp_advertised[link_mode_masks_nwords];
*/
};
this way we will be left with another 7 reserved bytes for future (is
this enough?)
What would you prefer?
Marek
next reply other threads:[~2024-01-04 15:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-04 15:14 Marek Behún [this message]
2024-01-04 15:36 ` ethtool ioctl ABI: preferred way to expand uapi structure ethtool_eee for additional link modes? Andrew Lunn
2024-01-04 16:06 ` Heiner Kallweit
2024-01-04 16:21 ` Marek Behún
2024-01-04 16:39 ` Heiner Kallweit
2024-01-04 16:17 ` Maxime Chevallier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240104161416.05d02400@dellmb \
--to=kabel@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=mkubecek@suse.cz \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox