On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:23:45PM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>
>
> On 06/02/2018 07:26 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> *After this patch set*: goal keep things working the same as max as
> >> possible and get rid of TI custom tool.
> >
> > We are happy to keep things the same, if they fit with the switchdev
> > model. Anything in your customer TI tool/model which does not fit the
> > switchdev model you won't be able to keep, except if we agree to
> > extend the model.
>
> Right. That's the main goal of RFC to identify those gaps.
>
> >
> > I can say now, sw0p0 is going to cause problems. I really do suggest
> > you drop it for the moment in order to get a minimal driver
> > accepted. sw0p0 does not fit the switchdev model.
>
> Honestly, this is not the first patchset and we started without sw0p0,
> but then.... (with current LKML)
> - default vlan offloading breaks traffic reception to P0
> (Ilias saying it's fixed in next - good)
> - adding vlan to P1/P2 works, but not for P0 (again as per Ilias -fixed)
> - mcast - no way to manually add static record and include or exclude P0.
>
>
> :( above are basic functionality required.
For a DSA driver, this is way more than basic. A basic DSA driver just
provides interfaces, and does everything in software. No offload at
all. Generally, FDB offload is next, then MDB, and then VLAN, each as
separate patch sets.
> Unfortunately, I'm not sure if all this reworking and switchdev conversation
> would make sense
> if we will not be able to fit Ivan's work in new CPSW driver model ;..(
> and do AVB bridge.
AVB bridge should fit the switchdev model. You can offload TC via
switchdev e.g. the b53 has mirred, mellonex has flower and a lot more.
Andrew
