From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chaitanya Lala Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 1/1] e1000e: Expose MDI-X status via ethtool change Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:41:50 -0700 Message-ID: <4A26EE1E.7070402@riverbed.com> References: <1243353768.3188.2.camel@achroite> <20090527231542.GA19664@clala-laptop> <1244050462.3191.14.camel@achroite> <4A26B6BC.40605@riverbed.com> <9929d2390906031404j51d9d158i319ba84121212a6e@mail.gmail.com> <4A26E8CF.50700@riverbed.com> <9929d2390906031431t44de3203rf35500024af541aa@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Ben Hutchings , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: Jeff Kirsher Return-path: Received: from smtp1.riverbed.com ([206.169.144.12]:39008 "EHLO smtp1.riverbed.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755298AbZFCVlH (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:41:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <9929d2390906031431t44de3203rf35500024af541aa@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Chaitanya Lala w= rote: > =20 >> Jeff Kirsher wrote: >> =20 >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chaitanya Lala >>> wrote: >>> >>> =20 >>>> Ben Hutchings wrote: >>>> >>>> =20 >>>>> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 16:15 -0700, Chaitanya Lala wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> =20 >>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/ethtool.h b/include/linux/ethtool.h >>>>>> index 380b042..b553bdb 100644 >>>>>> --- a/include/linux/ethtool.h >>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/ethtool.h >>>>>> @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct ethtool_cmd { >>>>>> __u32 maxtxpkt; /* Tx pkts before generating tx in= t */ >>>>>> __u32 maxrxpkt; /* Rx pkts before generating rx in= t */ >>>>>> __u16 speed_hi; >>>>>> - __u16 reserved2; >>>>>> + __u8 is_mdix; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>> Since this is specific to Ethernet over=EF=BB=BF twisted-pair cab= le, could you >>>>> please rename this to "eth_tp_mdix". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> =20 >>>> Will do for sure. >>>> >>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>>> + __u8 reserved2; >>>>>> __u32 lp_advertising; /* Features the link partner adver= tises >>>>>> */ >>>>>> __u32 reserved[2]; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> @@ -632,6 +633,11 @@ struct ethtool_ops { >>>>>> #define AUTONEG_DISABLE 0x00 >>>>>> #define AUTONEG_ENABLE 0x01 >>>>>> +/* Mode MDI or MDI-X */ >>>>>> +#define MDI_INVALID 0x00 >>>>>> +#define MDI 0x01 >>>>>> +#define MDI_X 0x02 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Similarly, please add the prefix "ETH_TP_" to these. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> =20 >>>> Sure. >>>> >>>> =20 >>> Chaitanya, I have made the requested changes to the patch in my tre= e. >>> >>> >>> =20 >> Thanks. I am very new to procedure of submitting kernel patches. Jus= t want >> to make sure if this means that I not need to send another patch to = netdev ? >> >> Thanks, >> Chaitanya >> -- >> =20 > > When there are changes requested on a patch, yes the patch needs to b= e > re-submitted to netdev. Since I will be pushing this patch along wit= h > other patches for Intel drivers to Dave once testing has been > completed, there is no need for you to re-submit this patch. I have > already sucked in the changes that Ben has requested into the patch > that is in my tree. > > =20 Thanks for the clarification. Chaitanya