Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 23:14:32 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6ry?= Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.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>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Russ Weight <russ.weight@linux.dev>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] ethtool: Expand Ethernet Power Equipment
 with PoE alongside PoDL
Message-ID: <887dbafe-def1-443f-8df2-b20b5ddc4db7@lunn.ch>
References: <20231116-feature_poe-v1-0-be48044bf249@bootlin.com>
 <20231116-feature_poe-v1-2-be48044bf249@bootlin.com>
 <04cb7d87-bb6b-4997-878d-490c17bfdfd0@lunn.ch>
 <20231120110944.66938859@kmaincent-XPS-13-7390>
 <20231120111008.GC590719@pengutronix.de>
 <2539b109-72ad-470a-9dae-9f53de4f64ec@lunn.ch>
 <20231120204221.GD590719@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20231120204221.GD590719@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

> > However, everything not PoDL PSE seems to be clause 33. So how about:
> > 
> > 	enum ethtool_podl_pse_admin_state podl_admin_control;
> > 	enum ethtool_c33_pse_admin_state c33_admin_control;  
> > 
> > At least inside the kernel we use c22, c45, c37 etc. I'm not sure they
> > are visible to userspace, but if we don't have a better name, maybe we
> > have to use c33 in userspace as well.
> > 
> > I do think naming like this makes it clear we are talking about two
> > parallel technologies, not a generic layer and then extensions for
> > podl.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> I'm OK with it.

Great.

> 
> K?ry, can you please include some kernel documentation in your patches?
> Something like this. I hope it will help to clarify things :) :

This is good. I'm just wondering where to put it. Ideally we want to
cross reference to it in both this header file, and in the netlink
UAPI.

	Andrew