From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 03/12] net: introduce generic switch devices support Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:03:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20140821170301.GA10633@nanopsycho.lan> References: <1408637945-10390-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <1408637945-10390-4-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <1408639283.13073.3.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, andy@greyhouse.net, tgraf@suug.ch, dborkman@redhat.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, jesse@nicira.com, pshelar@nicira.com, azhou@nicira.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, vyasevic@redhat.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, edumazet@google.com, jhs@mojatatu.com, sfeldma@cumulusnetworks.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, dev@openvswitch.org, jasowang@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, ryazanov.s.a@gmail.com, buytenh@wantstofly.org, aviadr@mellanox.com, nbd@openwrt.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, Neil.Jerram@metaswitch.com, ronye@mellanox.com To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com ([74.125.82.173]:45664 "EHLO mail-we0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751902AbaHURDG (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:03:06 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id q58so9654466wes.32 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1408639283.13073.3.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 06:41:23PM CEST, ben@decadent.org.uk wrote: >On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 18:18 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> 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. >[...] > >Why isn't the switch treated as a real device (not necessarily a net >device) that's included in the device model and that the port devices >refer to? That is certainly possible. But so far, there is no need for it. But I guess that it's probably a good idea at least to put it into sysfs structure. Noted, thanks Ben. > >Ben. > >-- >Ben Hutchings >If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.