From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mathieu Olivari <mathieu@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: dsa: add support for multiple CPU ports
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:57:10 -0700
Message-ID: <20150313015710.GA13593@codeaurora.org>
References: <20150310190129.GB5636@codeaurora.org>
 <20150310193151.GE10838@lunn.ch>
 <20150310204021.GA2740@codeaurora.org>
 <CAGVrzcZcLgMWuNJ9R_izuBRyyY21=ZJw+2Dk8RfxijGd2fMXNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150311011802.GA10875@codeaurora.org>
 <20150311133057.GA9601@lunn.ch>
 <20150311233738.GA5566@codeaurora.org>
 <20150312001926.GB9601@lunn.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Jonas Gorski <jogo@openwrt.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:56607 "EHLO
	smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753628AbbCMB5P (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:57:15 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150312001926.GB9601@lunn.ch>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:19:26AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Agreed. The switches I'm talking about (QCA8xxx/AR8xxx) don't support
> > a mode which would allow them to use all the CPU ports as one logical
> > bonding interface.
> 
> I had a 60 second look at https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/qsdk/oss/lklm/qca-ssdk/
> 
> It looks like dess, isis, and isisc have some support for trunks, and
> the rest do not.
> 

Yes, they do. But not on the CPU port, unfortunately.

> > I know some of these switches don't even support tagging. So I'd be
> > surprised if they're all capable of bonding.
> 
> So we are going to end up with multiple solutions depending on what
> the hardware is capable of.
> 
> > I think DSA should probably support both. I think it should allow
> > bonding for switches who support it, but it should also allow for port
> > based vlan mapped by the user.
> 
> So the question is, how do you make the existing concepts in Linux
> support this, so configuration is how you expect it to be, without
> special cases, oddities, etc.
> 

I'll start by ignoring the second CPU port for now and see how far I go.

> 	Andrew