On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 06:34:17 +0100 Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Ack I will go for it then, thank you! Other question to both of you: If we configure manually the current limit for a port. Then we plug a Powered Device and we detect (during the classification) a smaller current limit supported. Should we change the current limit to the one detected. On that case we should not let the user set a power limit greater than the one detected after the PD has been plugged. What do you think? Could we let a user burn a PD? Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
