On 16.02.2015 22:03, David Lang wrote: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Charlie Smurthwaite wrote: > >> Specifically I am looking for opinion on whether the swconfig framework >> is suitable for more advanced functionality, or whether there was likely >> to be a move to any other upstream framework for switch devices, >> particularly those with more advanced functionality. The types of >> functionality I am currently interested in supporting are: >>
> I am curious as to what other switch device frameworks are out there. > > It's worth noting that the vast majority of OpenWRT devices have a single > switch in them, and that switch is typically not the fanciest (although the > march of technology mens that every year it's going to be better than it used > to be) > > David Lang > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > Switch/"advanced functionality" questions are resurfacing often - many devs probably know & hate that "HW-NAT" ticket https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/11779 There might be 2 interesting posts regarding current/future state and development direction of In-Kernel drivers: 1) rejected in 2013: "net: phy: add Generic Netlink switch configuration API" link: http://lwn.net/Articles/571390/ The thread might be of (historical)/implementation interest That thread mentions some other infrastructure in Kernel (Marvell DSA) (that is not appropriate for OpenWrt according to devs) 2) since November 2014 there is a new switchdev api: introduce rocker switch driver with hardware accelerated datapath api - phase 1: bridge fdb offload link: http://lwn.net/Articles/619446/ _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
