Hi, On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 05:33:18PM +0000, Kyle Swenson wrote: > Hello Kory, > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 05:39:07PM +0100, Kory Maincent wrote: > > Hello Kyle, Oleksij, > ... > > > > Small question on PSE core behavior for PoE users. > > > > If we want to enable a port but we can't due to over budget. > > Should we : > > - Report an error (or not) and save the enable action from userspace. On that > > case, if enough budget is available later due to priority change or port > > disconnected the PSE core will try automatically to re enable the PoE port. > > The port will then be enabled without any action from the user. > > - Report an error but do nothing. The user will need to rerun the enable > > command later to try to enable the port again. > > > > How is it currently managed in PoE poprietary userspace tools? > > So in our implementation, we're using the first option you've presented. > That is, we save the enable action from the user and if we can't power > the device due to insufficient budget remaining, we'll indicate that status to the > user. If enough power budget becomes available later, we'll power up > the device automatically. It seems to be similar to administrative UP state - "ip link set dev lan1 up". I'm ok with this behavior. -- 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 |
