From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6CDC433F5 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 23:14:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242476AbhLGXSY (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:18:24 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58220 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242411AbhLGXSX (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:18:23 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFDDAC061574; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 15:14:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id x15so2129268edv.1; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:14:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=RPog8CITgy/pVwIm1Iz97LmWJz3Ng5W1QmgnQYXTdJU=; b=JkOO/PfPVBoQQJ/9wXtWfJupjBUfXDmfisRQPyIQMd5vBiUdv+C6DfopWklGEYpkog ZcbwZSWQtK/K8u/Jk6fYaljW8LQWAffIvvACu8SwXh8td+/r641im1EuvD75vQ+/JcA1 7ivqrvIfbALuzN+/+MEoS8uRylXfnf48/md7P98LG7PDRTUw5/MzdfwTCjXU3YmYjTs/ xGHsHCCrqhNwAswUb+PMVIbnDs0ohTVyF2JHBgHtH0vYZNajQv6VsqcEK2SFtH33D1ba aP2RWMW8j+p+lAtshwzDPzkpu3wexHpGvPhFpCPEq+DUHG4yuJgZkPtzQqBEFhcIee+c gwZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=RPog8CITgy/pVwIm1Iz97LmWJz3Ng5W1QmgnQYXTdJU=; b=EgCHGplLu6bngPtKLvVQHHR7XdgHIos58WkO+4Y57evhiFY5HKSXLZSUtdTdeXnP+4 SK+T+n0/yLbZ7Hol+5eoGdHASpo9gfJ55d4NYMjgV0kw3OMW9+5HQM5FyPydZx2z87zt PlB+sTtiX2pg9Pg8HMa0ey9D5u/9f/1pc8+tvMVe7apIBNMz4mXtuiYFkYsBLVXWaxDv TbypKx/cmk3DetmxvgiVRkuH3gEdWDlcr6b9AWYtw77GjXEtAi1e3kfwLZle/cwZ5wgT W3ZeNogRtP2UM6p2lqZHcLCYYs32J55KhudJOZuWu2Z1wZG/AWAKF7wOLkIwkA+rJGdT QIdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532iVh7GmIF0erUxXgYfl7BwVATWyIQc7npunLY8KgcBweQWkM0V ypxqdipUSBSe0XAVVfd4lcI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJweMD9Gnr3TxVSoNgSUkV7qjWd/EozhpC73K4CbCMJTFv1CMZnvjzsxlze5eL7DqjXOkWJKEA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1d50:: with SMTP id dz16mr13397884edb.385.1638918891347; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:14:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from skbuf ([188.25.173.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id qk9sm482567ejc.68.2021.12.07.15.14.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:14:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 01:14:49 +0200 From: Vladimir Oltean To: Andrew Lunn Cc: Ansuel Smith , Vivien Didelot , Florian Fainelli , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 0/6] Add support for qca8k mdio rw in Ethernet packet Message-ID: <20211207231449.bk5mxg3z2o7mmtzg@skbuf> References: <20211207145942.7444-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com> <61afadb9.1c69fb81.7dfad.19b1@mx.google.com> <61afb452.1c69fb81.18c6f.242e@mx.google.com> <20211207205219.4eoygea6gey4iurp@skbuf> <61afd6a1.1c69fb81.3281e.5fff@mx.google.com> <20211207224525.ckdn66tpfba5gm5z@skbuf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 11:54:07PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > I considered a simplified form like this, but I think the tagger private > > data will still stay in dp->priv, only its ownership will change. > > Isn't dp a port structure. So there is one per port? Yes, but dp->priv is a pointer. The thing it points to may not necessarily be per port. > This is where i think we need to separate shared state from tagger > private data. Probably tagger private data is not per port. Shared > state between the switch driver and the tagger maybe is per port? I don't know whether there's such a big difference between "shared state" vs "private data"? The dp->priv model is flexible enough to support both. For example, in tag_sja1105, dp->priv is a struct sja1105_port. All struct sja1105_port of a switch have a common struct sja1105_tagger_data *data pointer. We could certainly set up the tag_ops->connect(dst) function to allocate memory in this way.