From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.white.stw.pengutronix.de (mx1.white.stw.pengutronix.de [185.203.200.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14F3F3A7D6F; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:44:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.203.200.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784879067; cv=none; b=GVzpthZd+FdFh6qUUIy1GgfSRP1cERfn3jVSIakzCjNPwTV7SQ733p056Jr7HOptrexvCiEynf55JuvhgbZlw6pGXtXLGggQ/quzXqgP1nqWeiyDR0SU/6z5lHeRzafL1btxmjvhTOOKJ5XMX3L95MaA6TnAapiWx5hCwEimj+g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784879067; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LDvMaaSmzaSgGhbmd1K4s8X4A9d5quPXu1ojSw/HVgc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CZ7zBloLzT6S3xkEU2+3DhENGwPe9WjAWUjoJxojnCDcJlGbzljqvXAecMtaAilALHgKBi5v1PJEiQxVlG8j9QDiUEoG8mgHTAciHyaOkz9DyV+GaouTxfEsaskfkPDXib2S/S9kp2Jf4+LYLc0ayeIOaCaaMQU/ctFawCs3s10= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pengutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pengutronix.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.203.200.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pengutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pengutronix.de Received: from drehscheibe.grey.stw.pengutronix.de (drehscheibe.grey.stw.pengutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:edc0:0:c01:1d::a2]) (Authenticated sender: relay-from-drehscheibe.grey.stw.pengutronix.de) by mx1.white.stw.pengutronix.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C18662004F0; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:44:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pty.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de ([2a0a:edc0:2:b01:1d::c5]) by drehscheibe.grey.stw.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wnAZr-0011ly-2F; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:44:15 +0200 Received: from ore by pty.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wnAZr-0000000H9x9-2PLD; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:44:15 +0200 Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:44:15 +0200 From: Oleksij Rempel To: Jonas Jelonek Cc: Sander Vanheule , Kory Maincent , Andrew Lunn , "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Golle , =?utf-8?B?QmrDuHJu?= Mork , Conor Dooley Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 1/4] dt-bindings: net: pse-pd: add bindings for Realtek PSE MCU Message-ID: References: <20260715075530.2491534-1-jelonek.jonas@gmail.com> <20260715075530.2491534-2-jelonek.jonas@gmail.com> <3f71640b-9f22-4d0b-9c4d-dc64c397d286@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Sent-From: Pengutronix Hildesheim X-URL: http://www.pengutronix.de/ X-Accept-Language: de,en X-Accept-Content-Type: text/plain On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 09:18:45AM +0200, Jonas Jelonek wrote: > Hi Oleksij, > > On 23.07.26 12:20, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 11:45:20AM +0200, Jonas Jelonek wrote: > >>> Since we already talk about power budgeting - all of this make sense if > >>> we have port priorities. For example PD692x0 firmware has default prios > >>> bound to port numbers. Is it the same with this firmware? > >> Looking at several switches, by default all ports have a priority of 0 assigned. > >> Thus, no pre-defined prioritisation, it's up to the user to set this. > > Do this switches have PSU covering all port at max load or it is over > > provisioning by design. > > In most cases it's overprovisioned by design, the PSU budget is usually lower > than what would be needed for all ports at max load. Even one of my switches, > having a PoE budget of 400W, has 8 ports with 32W and 16 ports with 60 W, > managed by 5 managers. Usually a manager is not overprovisioned but the > system PSU is. > > > Haw it behave in reality If we attach more > > consumer then it is able to handle - all ports go off, or only some of > > them? > > That's a good question ^^. Unfortunately, I do not have enough PoE-powered > devices here to test this scenario, or at least it takes a bit of time to get > enough devices. > > > > > PD692x0 firmware has user configurable prios - but if many ports share > > same prios it has internal prios based on port number. > > > > At least I'm not aware of that but since the firmware on the MCU is a > blackbox, in the end this could be the case too. But it's not an obvious > feature. It would be nice to have both of this answers, but they are not blocker for this patch set. > I'd like to slightly adjust the bindings, given the confusion about the naming > that came up with Sander. Ack. > Is there anything else that should be changed? Or is everything else in > terms of supply, budgeting, etc. fine for follow-ups? Ack, can be done in follow-ups. -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |