Naveen Mamindlapalli <[email protected]> writes: >> - Is this the right extensibility model? I'd appreciate input from >> other NIC vendors on whether component/name/direction is flexible >> enough for their loopback implementations. Also, from the PHY/port >> folks (Maxime, Russell)! Naveen, please LMK if the MAC side of >> thing, is good enough for Marvell. > > Hi Bjorn, > > Is a SERDES component as Maxime suggested something you'd consider > for follow-up patches? It would be a natural fit for SoCs with a > separate SerDes hardware block.
I don't think so -- rather, I think I'll follow Maxime's suggestion for fewer components, where "component" would be "Linux abstraction/object", and the "name" would be 802.3 vocabolary. Please see my reply to Maxime (in the writing now ;-)). Cheers, Björn
