On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:48:31AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:05:28AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:56:20AM CEST, ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org wrote:
> > Any reason you need cpu port? We don't need it in mlxsw and also in dsa.
> Yes i've seen that on mlxsw/rocker drivers and i was reluctant adding one
> here.
> The reason is that TI wants this configured differently from customer facing
> ports. Apparently there are existing customers already using the "feature".
> So OR'ing and adding the cpu port on every operation (add/del vlans add
> ucast/mcast entries etc) was less favoured.
Hi Ilias
Nice to see this device moving away from its custom model and towards
the switchdev model.
Did you consider making a clean break from the existing code and write
a new driver. Let the existing customers using the existing
driver. Have the new switchdev driver fully conform to switchdev.
I don't like having this 'cpu' interface. As you say, it breaks the
switchhdev model. If we need to extend the switchdev model to support
some use case, lets do that. Please can you fully describe the use
cases, so we can discuss how to implement them cleanly within the
switchdev model.
Thanks
Andrew
