Re: [PATCH] net-sysfs: allow changing sysfs carrier when interface is down

[Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@infinera.com>]

On Thu, 2022-06-02 at 20:09 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-06-02 at 10:56 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 17:15:13 +0000
> > Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@infinera.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2022-06-02 at 09:57 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 16:26:18 +0000 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:  
> > > > > On Thu, 2022-06-02 at 08:56 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:  
> > > > > > > Sure, our HW has config/state changes that makes it impossible for net driver
> > > > > > > to touch and registers or TX pkgs(can result in System Error exception in worst case.  
> > > > 
> > > > What is "our HW", what kernel driver does it use and why can't the
> > > > kernel driver take care of making sure the device is not accessed
> > > > when it'd crash the system?  
> > > 
> > > It is a custom asic with some homegrown controller. The full config path is too complex for kernel too
> > > know and depends on user input. The cashing/TX TMO part was not part of the design plans and
> > > I have been down this route with the HW designers without success.
> > 
> > Changing upstream code to support out of tree code?
> > The risk of breaking current users for something that no one else uses
> > is a bad idea.
> 
> There are in tree users too, see fixed_phy_change_carrier(), I am not asking for adding
> a new feature, just making an existing one more usable.
> 
> > 
> > > >   
> > > > > Maybe so but it seems to me that this limitation was put in place without much thought.  
> > > > 
> > > > Don't make unnecessary disparaging statements about someone else's work.
> > > > Whoever that person was.  
> > > 
> > > That was not meant the way you read it, sorry for being unclear.
> > > The commit from 2012 simply says:
> > > net: allow to change carrier via sysfs
> > >     
> > >     Make carrier writable
> > > 
> > 
> > Setting carrier from userspace was added to support VPN's etc;
> > in general it was not meant as hardware workaround.
> > 
> > Often using operstate is better with complex hardware did you look at that?
> 
> You mean?
> ls -l /sys/class/net/sgmii/operstate  
> -r--r--r--    1 root     root          4096 Mar  9 12:46 /sys/class/net/sgmii/operstate
> 
> I did, but operstate here is not writeable.
> Did you perhaps mean some other operstate ?
> 

Looked a little deeper and found:
  ip link set eth0 carrier off/on
which works regardless of eth0 UP/DOWN state for me.

Exactly what I am asking net-sysfs to allow as well.
if net-sysfs carrier and ip link set eth0 carrier are the same function it makes sense
they have the same privs, right?

 Jocke