Re: [net-next v2 10/11] bridge: switchdev: cfm: switchdev interface implementation

[Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>]

On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 15:07 +0200, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:
> Hi Jiri
> 
> On 01.10.2020 14:49, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:30:18PM CEST, henrik.bjoernlund@microchip.com wrote:
> > > This is the definition of the CFM switchdev interface.
> > > 
> > > The interface consist of these objects:
> > >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM,
> > >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CONFIG_CFM,
> > >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CONFIG_CFM,
> > >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM,
> > >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CCM_TX_CFM,
> > >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_STATUS_CFM,
> > >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PEER_MEP_STATUS_CFM
> > > 
> > > MEP instance add/del
> > >    switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM)
> > >    switchdev_port_obj_del(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM)
> > > 
> > > MEP cofigure
> > >    switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CONFIG_CFM)
> > > 
> > > MEP CC cofigure
> > >    switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CONFIG_CFM)
> > > 
> > > Peer MEP add/del
> > >    switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM)
> > >    switchdev_port_obj_del(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM)
> > > 
> > > Start/stop CCM transmission
> > >    switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CCM_TX_CFM)
> > > 
> > > Get MEP status
> > >       switchdev_port_obj_get(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_STATUS_CFM)
> > > 
> > > Get Peer MEP status
> > >       switchdev_port_obj_get(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PEER_MEP_STATUS_CFM)
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Horatiu Vultur  <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Henrik Bjoernlund  <henrik.bjoernlund@microchip.com>
> > 
> > You have to submit the driver parts as a part of this patchset.
> > Otherwise it is no good.
> Fair enough.
> 
> With MRP we did it like this, and after Nik asked for details on what is
> being offload, we thought that adding this would help.
> 
> The reason why we did not include the implementation of this interface
> is that it is for a new SoC which is still not fully available which is
> why we have not done the basic SwitchDev driver for it yet. But the
> basic functionality clearly needs to come first.
> 
> Our preference is to continue fixing the comments we got on the pure SW
> implementation and then get back to the SwitchDev offloading.
> 
> This will mean dropping the last 2 patches in the serie.
> 
> Does that work for you Jiri, and Nik?
> 
> /Allan
> 

Sounds good to me. Sorry I was unresponsive last week, but I was sick and
couldn't get to netdev@. I'll review the set today.

Cheers,
 Nik