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:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 20:56:42 +0200
From:   Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>, kernel@pengutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        David Jander <david@protonic.nl>,
        Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@sartura.hr>,
        Robert Marko <robert.marko@sartura.hr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/7] ethtool: add interface to interact with
 Ethernet Power Equipment
Message-ID: <20220825185642.GB2116@pengutronix.de>
References: <20220825130211.3730461-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20220825130211.3730461-7-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20220825110756.6361fff7@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220825110756.6361fff7@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 11:07:56AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 15:02:10 +0200 Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > +void ethtool_set_ethtool_pse_ops(const struct ethtool_pse_ops *ops)
> > +{
> > +	rtnl_lock();
> > +	ethtool_pse_ops = ops;
> > +	rtnl_unlock();
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ethtool_set_ethtool_pse_ops);
> 
> Do we really need the loose linking on the PSE ops?
> It's not a lot of code, and the pcdev->ops should be 
> enough to decouple drivers, it seems.

Right now i have no good idea how to properly decouple pse-pd from phydev.

@Andrew, should i care about it on this stage or it is currently not a
big deal?

> > +static int pse_set_pse_config(struct net_device *dev,
> > +			      struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
> > +			      struct nlattr **tb)
> > +{
> > +	struct phy_device *phydev = dev->phydev;
> > +	struct pse_control_config config = {};
> > +	const struct ethtool_pse_ops *ops;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	if (!tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL])
> > +		return 0;
> 
> If SET has no useful attrs the usual response is -EINVAL.

ack

> > +	ops = ethtool_pse_ops;
> > +	if (!ops || !ops->set_config)
> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > +	config.admin_cotrol = nla_get_u8(tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL]);
> > +
> > +	if (!phydev)
> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > +	// todo resolve phydev dependecy
> 
> My lack of phydev understanding and laziness are likely the cause,
> but I haven't found an explanation for this todo. What is it about?

sorry. old artifact, will be removed. It is part of phydev/phylink
related discussion in the last patch version.

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |