On 05/23/2018 10:35 AM, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote: > On 23.05.2018 17:28, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> >>> And in the future (time plan)? >> If you don't care about multicast then you can use those patches: >> >> https://github.com/ffainelli/linux/commit/de055bf5f34e9806463ab2793e0852f5dfc380df >> >> >> and you have to change the part of drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c that >> returns DSA_TAG_PROTO_NONE for 53125: >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c >> b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c >> index 9f561fe505cb..3c64f026a8ce 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c >> @@ -1557,7 +1557,7 @@ enum dsa_tag_protocol b53_get_tag_protocol(struct >> dsa_switch *ds, int port) >> * mode to be turned on which means we need to specifically >> manage ARL >> * misses on multicast addresses (TBD). >> */ >> - if (is5325(dev) || is5365(dev) || is539x(dev) || is531x5(dev) || >> + if (is5325(dev) || is5365(dev) || is539x(dev) || >> !b53_can_enable_brcm_tags(ds, port)) >> return DSA_TAG_PROTO_NONE; >> >> >> That would bring Broadcom tags to the 53125 switch and you would be able >> to use the configuration lines from Andrew in that case. > > What's the plan here regarding these 2 config option mode (how do you > call them?)?
Broadcom tags is the underlying feature that provides per-port information about the packets going in and out. Turning on Broadcom tags requires turning on managed mode which means that the host now has to manage how MAC addresses are programmed into the switch, it's not rocket science, but I don't have a good test framework to automate the testing of those changes yet. If you are willing to help in the testing, I can certainly give you patches to try. > > I mean, will this be a breaking change in the future where config has to > be done in a different way then? When Broadcom tags are enabled the switch gets usable the way Andrew expressed it, the only difference that makes on your configuration if you want e.g: VLAN 101 to be for port 1-4 and VLAN 102 to be for port 5, is that you no longer create an eth0.101 and eth0.102, but you create br0.101 and br0.102. > > Or will it be configurable via module parameters or /proc or /sys > filesystem options? We might be able to expose a sysfs attribute which shows the type of tagging being enabled by a particular switch, that way scripts can detect which variant: configuring the host controller or the bridge is required. Would that be acceptable? -- Florian
