From: Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:29:35 +0100
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:15:50PM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> In VLAN_AWARE mode CPSW can insert VLAN header encapsulation word on Host >> port 0 egress (RX) before the packet data if RX_VLAN_ENCAP bit is set in >> CPSW_CONTROL register. VLAN header encapsulation word has following format: >> >> HDR_PKT_Priority bits 29-31 - Header Packet VLAN prio (Highest prio: 7) >> HDR_PKT_CFI bits 28 - Header Packet VLAN CFI bit. >> HDR_PKT_Vid bits 27-16 - Header Packet VLAN ID >> PKT_Type bits 8-9 - Packet Type. Indicates whether the packet is >> VLAN-tagged, priority-tagged, or non-tagged. >> 00: VLAN-tagged packet >> 01: Reserved >> 10: Priority-tagged packet >> 11: Non-tagged packet >> >> This feature can be used to implement TX VLAN offload in case of >> VLAN-tagged packets and to insert VLAN tag in case Non-tagged packet was >> received on port with PVID set. As per documentation, CPSW never modifies >> packet data on Host egress (RX) and as result, without this feature >> enabled, Host port will not be able to receive properly packets which >> entered switch non-tagged through external Port with PVID set (when >> non-tagged packet forwarded from external Port with PVID set to another >> external Port - packet will be VLAN tagged properly). > > So, i think it is time to discuss the future of this driver. It should > really be replaced by a switchdev/DSA driver. There are plenty of > carrots for a new driver: Better statistics, working ethtool support > for all the PHYs, better user experience, etc. But maybe now it is > time for the stick. Should we Maintainers decide that no new features > should be added to the existing drivers, just bug fixes? Andrew, I totally share your concerns. However, I think the reality is that at best we can strongly urge people to do such a large amount of work such as writing a new switchdev/DSA driver for this cpsw hardware. We can't really compel them. And a stick could have the opposite of it's intended effect. If still nobody wants to do the switchdev/DSA driver, then this existing one rots and even worse we can end up with an out-of-tree version of this driver that has the changes (such as this one) that people want. I'd like to see the switchdev/DSA driver for cpsw as much as you do, but I am not convinced that rejecting patches like this one will necessarily make that happen. Also, it would be a completely different situation if we had someone working on the switchdev/DSA version already. So as it stands I really don't think we can block this patch. Thank you.
