Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:45:33PM CET, vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com wrote:
>Hi Jiri,
>
>Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> writes:
>
>>>Extra question: shouldn't phys_port_{id,name} be switchdev attributes in
>>
>> Again, phys_port_id has nothing to do with switches. Should be removed
>> from dsa because its use there is incorrect.
>
>Florian, since 3a543ef just got in, can it be reverted?Yes, please revert it. It is only in net-next. > >>>> I guess that it should be enough for you to implement >>>> ndo_get_phys_port_name. >>> >>>Well, if this name must be unique on a system, it's not likely to happen >>>until we agree that we use an ugly tXsYpZ template where X is a tree ID, >>>or we assign system-wide unique IDs to switches, which requires a bit of >>>changes. >> >> No. That should be unique within one switch. In mlxsw we name it "p1", >> "p2", ... >> >> The final netdev names are: >> enp3s0np1, enp3s0np2, ... > >OK perfect then, "p%d" sounds good. You seems to avoid "p0" in mlxsw, is >there a reason for that? We name these according to the front panel name. There's no "port 0" on the front panel :) > >>>But again, this is not related to this patch ;-) >> >> It is! You are using phys_port_id, which is completely wrong. You should >> not use it. > >I can resend this patch without the udev examples in the commit message >if that can be less confusing. Yes please. > >Thanks, > > Vivien
