Re: [PATCH] net: phy: b53: switchdev driver for Broadcom BCM53xx switches

[Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>]

On 24/02/15 14:56, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 24 February 2015 at 23:48, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24/02/15 09:42, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>> BCM53xx is series of Broadcom Ethernet switches that can be found in
>>> various (mostly home) routers.
>>> They are quite simple switches with mainly just support for:
>>> 1) Tagging incoming packets (PVID)
>>> 2) Untagging outgoing packets
>>> 3) Forwarding all packets across a single VLAN
>>>
>>> This driver is split into common code (module) and bus specific code.
>>> Right now only PHY (MDIO) support is included, other could follow after
>>> accepting this driver. It was successfully tested on BCM4706 SoC with
>>> BCM53125.
>>>
>>> You could notice it's yet another try of submitting b53 driver. This
>>> time it was modified to use recently introduced switchdev API which
>>> hopefully make it possible to accept it mainline.
>>
>> This is good as a very basic driver,
> 
> Thanks :) That was exactly my point: to get a minimal driver (but
> implementing the basic functionality!) accepted and then continue
> improving it.
> 
> 
>> there is still a bunch of things
>> missing that might not be too hard to add to this submission:
>>
>> - fetching MIB counters through ethtool
>> - reporting link state/parameters
>> - changing MTU/Jumbo frame support
>> - HW bridging support
> 
> I agree about missing features. I was already thinking about MIB, it
> should be easy to support it with ethtool_ops and get_sset_count +
> get_strings. Probably the same for link status. Not sure about HW
> bridging.
> 
> Would you agree to work on having this basic driver accepted first
> (like discussing code location, API usage) and then work on additional
> features in separated patches? I think it would simplify the process
> and could result in better core review, as people could focus on small
> bunch of changes.

I would prefer if you could give me the time to implement that:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg295942.html

such that you would get a lot of the network device creation, operations
etc.. for free, with your driver still being a phy_driver ultimately.
But I have no strong objections either.
-- 
Florian