Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 11 Jun 2022 17:50:35 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>, kernel@pengutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] net: phy: add remote fault support
Message-ID: <YqS5yxrRX4Y4LTWd@lunn.ch>
References: <20220608093403.3999446-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220608093403.3999446-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

> --- a/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h
> @@ -1840,6 +1840,46 @@ static inline int ethtool_validate_duplex(__u8 duplex)
>  #define MASTER_SLAVE_STATE_SLAVE		3
>  #define MASTER_SLAVE_STATE_ERR			4
>  
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_UNSUPPORTED		0
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_UNKNOWN		1
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_NO_ERROR		2
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 28.2.1.2.4 Fault without additional information */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_ERROR			3
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 28C.5 Message code 4: 0 - RF Test */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_TEST			4
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 28C.5 Message code 4: 1 - Link Loss */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_LINK_LOSS		5
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 28C.5 Message code 4: 2 - Jabber */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_JABBER			6
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 28C.5 Message code 4: 3 - Parallel Detection Fault */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_PDF			7
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 37.2.1.5.2 Offline */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_OFFLINE		8
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 37.2.1.5.3 Link_Failure */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_LINK_FAIL		9
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 37.2.1.5.4 Auto-Negotiation_Error */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_CFG_AN_ERROR		10
> +
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_UNSUPPORTED		0
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_UNKNOWN		1
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_NO_ERROR		2
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 28.2.1.2.4 Fault without additional information */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_ERROR		3
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 28C.5 Message code 4: 0 - RF Test */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_TEST			4
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 28C.5 Message code 4: 1 - Link Loss */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_LINK_LOSS		5
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 28C.5 Message code 4: 2 - Jabber */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_JABBER		6
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 28C.5 Message code 4: 3 - Parallel Detection Fault */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_PDF			7
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 37.2.1.5.2 Offline */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_OFFLINE		8
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 37.2.1.5.3 Link_Failure */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_LINK_FAIL		9
> +/* IEEE 802.3-2018 37.2.1.5.4 Auto-Negotiation_Error */
> +#define REMOTE_FAULT_STATE_AN_ERROR		10

I'm not sure there is any value in having these values twice. They are
expected to be identical, so one set should be enough.

	 Andrew