On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:27:05PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 01:53:52PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote: > > This is a continue of [1]. It was decided to take a more gradual > > approach to implement LEDs support for switch and phy starting with > > basic support and then implementing the hw control part when we have all > > the prereq done. > > > > This should be the final part for the netdev trigger. > > I added net-next tag and added netdev mailing list since I was informed > > that this should be merged with netdev branch. > > > > We collect some info around and we found a good set of modes that are > > common in almost all the PHY and Switch. > > > > These modes are: > > - Modes for dedicated link speed(10, 100, 1000 mbps). Additional mode > > can be added later following this example. > > - Modes for half and full duplex. > > > > The original idea was to add hw control only modes. > > While the concept makes sense in practice it would results in lots of > > additional code and extra check to make sure we are setting correct modes. > > > > With the suggestion from Andrew it was pointed out that using the ethtool > > APIs we can actually get the current link speed and duplex and this > > effectively removed the problem of having hw control only modes since we > > can fallback to software. > > > > Since these modes are supported by software, we can skip providing an > > user for this in the LED driver to support hw control for these new modes > > (that will come right after this is merged) and prevent this to be another > > multi subsystem series. > > > > For link speed and duplex we use ethtool APIs. > > > > To call ethtool APIs, rtnl lock is needed but this can be skipped on > > handling netdev events as the lock is already held. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230216013230.22978-1-ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Hi Christian, > > I am sorry if I am missing something obvious here, > but this series does not appear to apply on top of net-next. > > Please consider rebasing and reposting. > > As you probably know, you can include the reviewed-by tags > provided by Andrew for this posting, unless there are > substantial changes. > > -- > pw-bot: changes-requested > Hi, sorry for the mistake. I just sent v5 and added the additional Review-by tag. -- Ansuel
