On 13.03.2021 17:54, Bjørn Mork wrote:
From: John Crispin <[email protected]>This package implements the microcontroller protocol used to talk Broadcom PSE controllers on a number of realtek switches. It is required to enable PoE ouput on supported hardware. The implemented ABI allows individial control and monitoring of each PoE port using ubus. Example from a ZyXEL GS1900-10HP: root@gs1900-10hp:~# ubus -v list poe 'poe' @3c3a28fb "info":{} "port":{"enable":"Boolean","port":"Integer"} root@gs1900-10hp:~# ubus call poe info { "ports": [ "enabled", "enabled", "0W", "enabled", "enabled", "enabled", "4.6W", "4W" ], "power_budget": "77W", "power_consumption": "7.8W" } Tested-by: Birger Koblitz <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: John Crispin <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Bjørn Mork <[email protected]> [commit message, release number]
This is a rather hacky way to support one particular device rather than a proper solution for PoE capable devices. I really think we should design a proper PoE layer instead of accepting this hack. I'm sorry but I'm really against commiting this as it is. It supports rtl83xx without any standarized way. It adds non-generic ubus object with a generic "poe" name. It opens doors for more unstandarized solutions. Because of above: Nacked-by: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]> Now how about to solve it. Regarding UCI syntax. One idea is to have section for PoE /device/ and sections for each of its ports. That way we can also support more complex devices, e.g. those with more port options. I think there may be hw allowing e.g. setting max port power budget or port priority. Example /etc/config/poe: config hw rtl83xx option protocol rtl83xx option budget 65 config port option poe rtl83xx option index 0 option enabled 0 config port option poe rtl83xx option index 1 option enabled 1 option priority 3 # <- example for further devices I'm still wondering if a separated config file (/etc/config/poe) is a correct solution. After all we describe swithes in the /etc/config/network . Maybe we can just extend that? Then ubus + reading PoE status. I think we should support: 1. More than 1 PoE device (so e.g. poe.rtl83xx, poe.foo, poe.bar) 2. Have more generic ports syntax. 0W doesn't tell me if power usage is so low or if port is disabled Maybe somethig like: # ubus call poe.rtl83xx info { "power_budget": "77 W", "power_consumption": "7.8 W", "ports": [ { "index": 0, "enabled": 0 }, { "index": 0, "enabled": 1, "current_power": "7 W" } ] } Design I described above should be generic enough & allow e.g. adding LuCI support for handling PoE devices cleanly. Finally I think we could pick a better language than Lua for implementing rtl83xx driver. _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
