On 04.04.2024 02:18, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 12:19:57 +0200 Wojciech Drewek wrote: >> You're saying that if min_pwr_allowed or max_pwr_allowed taken from get op >> are 0 than we should not allow to set max_pwr_reset and max_pwr_set? > > Yes, return -EOPNOTSUPP and point extack at whatever max_pwr attr user > sent. If driver doesn't return any bounds from get() it must not support > the configuration. Ok > >> And similarly if policy was 0 than we should not allow to set it? > > You mean the limit? I'm not as sure about this one. We can either > treat 0 as "unset" or as unsupported. Not sure what makes more sense > for this case. I was talking about ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_POWER_MODE_POLICY, attribute that is already present in ethtool.
- [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 0/3] ethtool: Max power ... Wojciech Drewek
- [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 2/3] ethtool: Intro... Wojciech Drewek
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 2/3] ethtoo... Jakub Kicinski
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 2/3] et... Wojciech Drewek
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 2/3... Jakub Kicinski
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-nex... Wojciech Drewek
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net... Jakub Kicinski
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH... Wojciech Drewek
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 2/3] ethtoo... Andrew Lunn
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 2/3] et... Wojciech Drewek
- [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 3/3] ice: Implement... Wojciech Drewek
- [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 1/3] ethtool: Make ... Wojciech Drewek
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 0/3] ethtool: M... Jakub Kicinski
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 0/3] ethtoo... Wojciech Drewek
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 0/3] ethtool: M... Andrew Lunn
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 0/3] ethtoo... Wojciech Drewek
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 0/3] et... Jakub Kicinski
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 0/3... Andrew Lunn
