From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 03/12] net: introduce generic switch devices support Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:42:04 -0400 Message-ID: <53F73A9C.4000209@mojatatu.com> References: <1408637945-10390-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <1408637945-10390-4-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sergey Ryazanov , "jasowang-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , John Fastabend , Neil Jerram , Eric Dumazet , Andy Gospodarek , dev , Felix Fietkau , ronye-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, Jeff Kirsher , ogerlitz , Ben Hutchings , Lennert Buytenhek , Roopa Prabhu , Aviad Raveh , Nicolas Dichtel , vyasevic , Neil Horman , netdev , Stephen Hemminger , dborkman , "Eric W. Biederman" , David Miller To: Florian Fainelli , Jiri Pirko Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 08/21/14 13:05, Florian Fainelli wrote: > 2014-08-21 9:18 GMT-07:00 Jiri Pirko : >> The goal of this is to provide a possibility to suport various switch >> chips. Drivers should implement relevant ndos to do so. Now there is a >> couple of ndos defines: >> - for getting physical switch id is in place. >> - for work with flows. >> >> Note that user can use random port netdevice to access the switch. > > I read through this patch set, and I still think that DSA is the > generic switch infrastructure we already have because it does provide > the following: > > - taking a generic platform data structure (C struct or Device Tree), > validate, parse it and map it to internal kernel structures > - instantiate per-port network devices based on the configuration data provided > - delegate netdev_ops to the switch driver and/or the CPU NIC when relevant > - provide support for hooking RX and TX traffic coming from the CPU NIC > > I would rather we build on the existing DSA infrastructure and add the > flow-related netdev_ops rather than having the two remain in > disconnect while flow-oriented switches driver get progressively > added. I guess I should take a closer look at the rocker driver to see > how hard would that be for you. > > What do you think? I thought we had concluded that DSA was a good path forward? Or maybe at this stage we need to have several alternative approaches and we eventually converge? cheers, jamal