On 24.5.2018 14:54, Andrew Lunn wrote: > 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. +1
> 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 would also prefer fresh new driver. The existing one can be marked as 'bugfix-only' and later pertinently deprecated/removed. > > 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. +1 Ivan
