From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrey Volkov Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] net: dsa: integrate with SWITCHDEV for HW bridging Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:27:14 +0100 Message-ID: <54F48152.4070205@nexvision.fr> References: <54EA8E7C.90401@roeck-us.net> <20150223031447.GA19267@lunn.ch> <54EAA767.6060105@roeck-us.net> <20150223042220.GA20063@lunn.ch> <54EAAEBC.6080609@roeck-us.net> <20150223133454.GB23581@lunn.ch> <54EB37C7.3090209@roeck-us.net> <20150223160109.GB27057@lunn.ch> <54EB6BF5.2020600@gmail.com> <20150223183537.GA23456@roeck-us.net> <54EDD172.4010606@nexvision.fr> <54EDDB72.1090706@roeck-us.net> <54F0A4DE.3020704@nexvision.fr> <54F17408.4080105@roeck-us.net> <54F475E8.8010408@nexvision.fr> <54F47876.2000104@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Andrew Lunn , netdev , David Miller , Vivien Didelot , jerome.oufella@savoirfairelinux.com, Chris Healy To: Guenter Roeck , Florian Fainelli Return-path: Received: from 1.mo1.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.32.127.22]:57103 "EHLO 1.mo1.mail-out.ovh.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754021AbbCBR4s (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:56:48 -0500 Received: from mail98.ha.ovh.net (gw6.ovh.net [213.251.189.206]) by mo1.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D75FFF9D87 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:27:17 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <54F47876.2000104@roeck-us.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/03/2015 15:49, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 03/02/2015 06:38 AM, Andrey Volkov wrote: >> >> On 28/02/2015 08:53, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On 02/27/2015 09:09 AM, Andrey Volkov wrote: >>>> Gunter, >>>> >>>> Sorry with response delay, I very was busy yesterday >>>> >>>> Le 25/02/2015 15:25, Guenter Roeck a =E9crit : >>>>> Andrey, >>>> >>>> ------- snip ------- >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I simply modify port's fid to the new one in the leave routine a= nd set to common bridge FID in enter >>>>>> (I'm using Marvell's chips). So the port's database will cleaned= up automatically for the leave and will >>>>>> contain something useful at the enter time. Also I've look throu= gh yours patches and I haven't >>>>> >>>>> Does removing a port from a fid clean up the entries associated w= ith it >>>>> in the database ? >>>> >>>> I've checked what happened when port changed its FID: switch logic= block traffic to it >>>> immediately, as far as I can see, meanwhile record still exists in= the bridge database, >>>> it was checked on 88e6185, 88e6097 and 88e6352 chips. And yet anot= her 5c: changing of group membership is >>>> not atomic operation in the Marvell's chips known for me, so the p= ort must be in the disabled state when it >>>> will happened. >>>> >>> Hmm - interesting. I assume you mean updating port registers 5 and = 6 ? >> Yes sure, it's reason why we must disable the port before changing t= he FID. >> > Yes, I think we'll need to do that once we use the bits in register 5= =2E >=20 >>> >>> Different question: For 6185, did you write a new driver or extend = an existing one ? >>> I found that it is quite similar to 6131, and that adding support f= or it to the 6131 >>> driver should be straightforward. >> Yes again :), and 88E6097 have same core as 6123_61_65. Difference i= n both cases only in the number >> of supported ports, and it was main reason why hardcoded port's numb= er was unacceptable for me, difference is >> large enough: for ex. 88e6123 have only 3 ports, but 88E6097 - 11. >> >=20 > I have a patch set to change the number of ports to a variable in the= 6131 driver. > Want me to submit it now ? Though I guess you must have pretty much t= he same, > so we can also use your approach. Let me know. I think that better to start from my patches: they are more generic and= have support of sysfs (should be useful for "MII over ethernet"). Also IMO it will be better = if we continue exchange/prereview our patches in more narrow mail list, since I do not want to pollute ne= tdev by useless discussions about drafts. Objections/suggestions? -- Regards Andrey