From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RFC CPSW switchdev mode Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:54:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20180524145441.GE5128@lunn.ch> References: <1527144984-31236-1-git-send-email-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> <20180524080528.GD2295@nanopsycho> <20180524084831.GA2759@apalos> <20180524125431.GB24557@lunn.ch> <7437d485-1eac-9619-3827-5af9b32b939e@redhat.com> <20180524140831.GA16793@apalos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ivan Vecera , Jiri Pirko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, grygorii.strashko@ti.com, ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org, nsekhar@ti.com, francois.ozog@linaro.org, yogeshs@ti.com, spatton@ti.com To: Ilias Apalodimas Return-path: Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:43732 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966379AbeEXOyq (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2018 10:54:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180524140831.GA16793@apalos> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > There's configuration needs from customers adding or not adding a VLAN to the > CPU port. In my configuration examples for instance, if the cpu port is not > added to the bridge, you cannot get an ip address on it. If you cannot get an IP address, it is plain broken. The whole idea is that switch port interfaces are just linux interfaces. A linux interface which cannot get an IP address is broken. > Similar cases exist for customers on adding MDBs as far as i know. So they want > the "customer facing ports" to have the MDBs present but not the cpu port. That i can understand. And it should actually work now with switchdev. It performs IGMP snooping, and if there is nothing joining the group on the CPU, it won't add an MDB entry to forward traffic to the CPU. > Adding a cpu port that cannot transmit or receive traffic is a bit "weird" And how is it supposed to send BPDUs? STP is going to be broken.... Andrew