From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Auke Kok Subject: Re: [e1000]: flow control on by default - good idea really? Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:57:32 -0700 Message-ID: <453640DC.6050103@intel.com> References: <44AC05A8.9030503@intel.com> <1152191018.5103.48.camel@jzny2> <20060706.235909.78729229.davem@davemloft.net> <1152275283.5341.144.camel@jzny2> <4533D594.2070908@intel.com> <1161090331.5555.10.camel@jzny2> <453544EF.4000502@intel.com> <1161178540.5240.16.camel@jzny2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se, john.ronciak@intel.com, greearb@candelatech.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, olel@ans.pl Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:1200 "EHLO mga01.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161112AbWJRPA0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:00:26 -0400 To: hadi@cyberus.ca In-Reply-To: <1161178540.5240.16.camel@jzny2> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal wrote: > On Tue, 2006-17-10 at 14:02 -0700, Auke Kok wrote: > >> For now, we should really report the FC status in e1000 at link up time. Jamal: this >> should help you out for now, I'll send something like this upstream later on. >> > > Thanks - this puts you at par with the tg3 at least. > > > On Tue, 2006-17-10 at 14:46 -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: jamal >> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:05:31 -0400 >> >>> It sounds to me that ethttool needs to have this semantic fix. >>> IOW, ethttool doesnt differentiate the two items: >>> a) advertised parameters. >>> b) link partner negotiated parameters. >>> >>> and instead #a becomes #b after negotiation. >>> >>> >>> methinks this needs fixing. Dave? Jeff? >> The way I understand it the ethernet autonegotiation mechanisms don't >> really give you a way to seperate these two things. >> >> Either you negotiate the link and flow control settings, or nothing. > > True - but I was thinking more of the state stored in the driver > either by ethtool or some other part of the driver. > > If i remember correctly, Donald Beckers old mii tool was able to > display > "here's what you have configured the driver for link and flow control and > these are what i advertise to link peers" > and > "here's what current negotiated link and flow control parameters with > link peer" > > That distinction doesnt exist with ethtool. Or i am missing something. nope, there's not even an ethtool cmd to query for that data AFAICS Auke