From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:41040 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752048AbeCXOkP (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:40:15 -0400
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:40:02 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, idosch@mellanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com,
        vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        michael.chan@broadcom.com, ganeshgr@chelsio.com,
        saeedm@mellanox.com, simon.horman@netronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com,
        dirk.vandermerwe@netronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com,
        ogerlitz@mellanox.com, dsahern@gmail.com, vijaya.guvva@cavium.com,
        satananda.burla@cavium.com, raghu.vatsavayi@cavium.com,
        felix.manlunas@cavium.com, gospo@broadcom.com,
        sathya.perla@broadcom.com, vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com,
        tariqt@mellanox.com, eranbe@mellanox.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and
 common phys_port_name generation
Message-ID: <20180324144002.GA31941@lunn.ch>
References: <20180322105522.8186-1-jiri@resnulli.us>
 <20180323134357.GG5145@lunn.ch>
 <20180323145935.GC2125@nanopsycho>
 <20180323152412.GC24361@lunn.ch>
 <20180324074551.GD1891@nanopsycho>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180324074551.GD1891@nanopsycho>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

> >The hardware and mechanical engineer is free to wire switch ports to
> >the front panel however they want. That is why we put the netdev name
> >in device tree.
> 
> Got it. Hmm, so I think that the port number can be made optional and
> when it is present, it would be used to generate phys_port_name. If
> not, perhaps devlink port index could be used instead.
> 
> So iiuc, you don't really need phys_port_name in dsa, as it provides
> misleading names, right? Why is it implemented then?

Hi Jiri

Isn't the same true for all devices? It is not just DSA devices where
the hardware engineer is free to wire up the front panel however they
want, it can happen for any device.

      Andrew