Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/8] net: ethtool: pse-pd: Expand pse commands with the PSE PoE interface

[Andrew Lunn]

> @@ -143,6 +150,43 @@ ethnl_set_pse(struct ethnl_req_info *req_info, struct genl_info *info)
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL] &&
> +	    !tb[ETHTOOL_A_C33_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL])
> +		return 0;

-EINVAL? Is there a real use case for not passing either of them?

> +
> +	if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL] &&
> +	    !(pse_get_types(phydev->psec) & PSE_PODL)) {
> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(info->extack,
> +				    tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL],
> +				    "setting PSE PoDL admin control not supported");
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +	}
> +	if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_C33_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL] &&
> +	    !(pse_get_types(phydev->psec) & PSE_C33)) {
> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(info->extack,
> +				    tb[ETHTOOL_A_C33_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL],
> +				    "setting PSE PoE admin control not supported");

This probably should be C33, not PoE?

I guess it depends on what the user space tools are using. 

	Andrew