From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool] ethtool: support combinations of FEC modes
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:49:29 +0200
Message-ID: <20180919154929.GG3876@unicorn.suse.cz>
References: <518b8b8b-0151-1053-3798-6009044ed53a@solarflare.com>
 <20180919144117.GF3876@unicorn.suse.cz>
 <20180919153338.GE17466@lunn.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>,
        "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ganesh Goudar <ganeshgr@chelsio.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        Dustin Byford <dustin@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        Dirk van der Merwe <dirk.vandermerwe@netronome.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48682 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1732496AbeISV2D (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:28:03 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180919153338.GE17466@lunn.ch>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 05:33:38PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > One loosely related question: how sure can we be that we are never going
> > to need more than 32 bits for FEC encodings? Is it something completely
> > hypothetical or is it something that could happen in the future?
> > 
> Hi Michal
> 
> Hopefully we have moved to a netlink socket by that time :-)

Actually, that's why I'm asking. :-)

> I recently found that EEE still uses a u32 for advertise link modes.
> We should fix that in the netlink API.

For EEE it felt obvious that arbitrary length bitmap is the way to go so
I used it (it's still u32 in ethtool_ops but that's easier to change
when needed).

For FEC I wasn't sure if it wouldn't be an overkill.

Michal Kubecek