On (08/15/07 10:11), Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > none > > > we-detected-and-sent-a-remote-fault > > > we-received-remove-fault-from-peer > > > > so, in that case, what's the man page talking about? :-? > > I have no idea. But there are only two bits in the MII register. One > for sending a remote fault indiciation, and one for receiving it. > > Maybe they are talking about parallel detection faults?
Well, there's another bug (man page fix) waiting to be filed. > > > > LINK PARAM STATE AUTONEG SPEED/DUPLEX PAUSE > > bge0 current up on 1G/f 1 > > capable -- on 1G/f/h,100M/f/h,10M/f/h 1 > > adv -- on 1G/f 1 > > peeradv -- on 1G/f 1 > > Yeah, its kind of hard to represent this cleanly. > > Maybe it doesn't make sense to include the STATE field here. There are > other ways to get this information. (dladm show-dev reports it, for > example.) > > For AUTONEG, I'd prefer "yes/no" to "on/off". (Maybe just a personal > preference.) You might be able to get some more horizontal room by > shortening AUTONEG to just AUTO. I'd leave the state there, and shrink autoneg to "auto"- state's kind of useful to have in show-ether, without having an extra indirection to another command. > 1000FH, 100FH, 10F <-- 1G, 100, 10, all duplex modes) > 1000F <-- 1G full > 10H <-- 10 half > 10000F <-- 10G > > I don't know if that is any easier to parse, or not. It's confusing, for the gigabit case (too many zeros!). How about something like this instead: 1G-both <- 1G full, half 10M-half <- 10M half only 100M-full <- 100M full only. and the column title then becomes "SPEED-DUPLEX" --Sowmini
