From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 04/12] dsa: set devlink port attrs for dsa ports Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 20:11:49 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4ba82a94-18c9-e5bb-8e96-11af8cfefa73@gmail.com> <20180517173907.GW1972@nanopsycho> <408e70ee-d3b4-8431-5ca7-6defa17b7088@gmail.com> <20180517204855.GX1972@nanopsycho> <20180517210856.GJ23601@lunn.ch> <862a5fb4-7a3c-9c3f-bd50-f25bbcb2ca59@gmail.com> <20180517224017.GA3943@lunn.ch> <57d602af-2996-dde5-72b1-2d4f58a47032@gmail.com> <20180518014137.GB6069@lunn.ch> <20180518063735.GY1972@nanopsycho> <20180518134504.GC20662@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, idosch@mellanox.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, michael.chan@broadcom.com, ganeshgr@chelsio.com, saeedm@mellanox.com, simon.horman@netronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com, dirk.vandermerwe@netronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, dsahern@gmail.com, vijaya.guvva@cavium.com, satananda.burla@cavium.com, raghu.vatsavayi@cavium.com, felix.manlunas@cavium.com, gospo@broadcom.com, sathya.perla@broadcom.com, vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com, tariqt@mellanox.com, eranbe@mellanox.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com To: Andrew Lunn , Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-ot0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]:42117 "EHLO mail-ot0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751117AbeESDLz (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2018 23:11:55 -0400 Received: by mail-ot0-f175.google.com with SMTP id l13-v6so11320435otk.9 for ; Fri, 18 May 2018 20:11:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180518134504.GC20662@lunn.ch> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/18/2018 06:45 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> What benefit does it have to register unused ports? What is a usecase >> for them. Like Florian, I also think they should not be registered. > > Hi Jiri > > They physically exist, so we are accurately describing the hardware by > registering them. You are right that the driver is advertising a number of ports that does not match what is being expected. We unfortunately do not have a good API for specifying e.g: a sparse port allocation. -- Florian