From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/4] introduce infrastructure for support of switch chip datapath Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:51:22 -0400 Message-ID: <53334BDA.1060608@mojatatu.com> References: <20140325180009.GB15723@casper.infradead.org> <20140325193533.GF8102@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <5332677F.2090404@cumulusnetworks.com> <5332B1FE.7080102@mojatatu.com> <53330639.8050403@cumulusnetworks.com> <20140326165934.GH2869@minipsycho.orion> <20140326173536.GJ2869@minipsycho.orion> <20140326181436.GL2869@minipsycho.orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Roopa Prabhu , Neil Horman , Thomas Graf , netdev , David Miller , Andy Gospodarek , dborkman , ogerlitz , jesse , pshelar , azhou , Ben Hutchings , Stephen Hemminger , jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, vyasevic , Cong Wang , John Fastabend , Eric Dumazet , Scott Feldman , Lennert Buytenhek , Shrijeet Mukherjee To: Jiri Pirko , Florian Fainelli Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com ([209.85.213.177]:38886 "EHLO mail-ig0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751580AbaCZVvZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:51:25 -0400 Received: by mail-ig0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ur14so1079055igb.16 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:51:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140326181436.GL2869@minipsycho.orion> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/26/14 14:14, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 06:58:32PM CET, f.fainelli@gmail.com wrote: >> 2014-03-26 10:35 GMT-07:00 Jiri Pirko : >> You are right, sw1p0 and sw1p1 were meant to be, say LAN ports in my example. >> >> I think there is an implicit convention that sw1 represents the >> Ethernet switch port connected to the CPU Ethernet MAC, and that it is >> always connected, hence there is no need to create a "fake" bridge to >> link sw1 to eth0 for instance? > > I think you are kind of mixing apples and oranges (or I might be I'm not > understanding you correctly). > This is how I see it, sticking to the names you use in the example: > > (sw1) (abstract place-holder netdev) > -------- > switch chip CPU > ----------------------- ------ > sw1p0 sw1p1 sw1p2 sw1p3 eth0 > | | | | | > PHY PHY PHY ------someMII----- > > You see that eth0 is the CPU part of the "connection" and sw1p3 is the > switch part (port representation). > Florian - I am sure you explained this before; I just dont remember. Why is there need to expose eth0? It seems to me sw1p0-3 are abstracted already in the kernel and the "cpu port" is merely a control interface. Note: even the high end chips tend to have the concept of a "cpu port" but my experience is to hide that as part of the switch driver. cheers, jamal