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

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

On 26/02/15 06:19, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Andy Gospodarek
> <gospo@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 07:47:55AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:21:58AM CET, gospo@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:53:24PM -0800, Scott Feldman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Andy Gospodarek
>>>>> <gospo@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 03:03:56PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What we don't want is X chip families and Y different ways to
>>>>>>> configure the features. Ideal we want X chip families, and one way to
>>>>>>> configure them all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This statement is really my primary concern.  There is lots of interest
>>>>>> around hardware offload at this point and it seems like there is a risk
>>>>>> that a lack of consistency can create problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think these patches are great as they allow for the programming of the
>>>>>> offload hardware (and it has been pointed out that this drastically
>>>>>> increases performance), but one concern I have with this patch (related
>>>>>> to this) is that I'm not sure there is a major need to create netdevs
>>>>>> automatically if there is not the ability to rx/tx actual frames on
>>>>>> these interfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even when not used for rx/tx to CPU, it seems the netdevs are still
>>>>> useful as an anchor to build higher-level constructs such as bridge or
>>>>> bond, and to hang stuff like netdev stats or ethtool-ish things.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that they are useful, but now we are really dealing with a
>>>> netdev that is slightly lower functionality than we expect from a netdev
>>>> right now.
>>>
>>> Is that a real care for some device now?
>> I guess that depends on how users expect to use it.  :)
>>
>>> I agree with Scott that we need to model is consistently. If there is
>>> such port netdev witch cannot tx/rx, we can expose the fact using some
>>> flag...
>> Using a flag to expose/mark this was exactly my thought.
> 
> Missing .ndo_start_xmit is the clue....do we need more?

We probably want to prevent users from assigning IP addresses to these
interfaces as well, a while ago we talked about not assigning an
inet_device/inet6_device pointer, maybe that's the way to go?
-- 
Florian