On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 02:04, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 12:12:15AM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> >> > and you create a dependency between the tagger and the switch driver
> >> > which was supposed by
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 02:04, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 12:12:15AM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> > and you create a dependency between the tagger and the switch driver
>> > which was supposed by design to not exist.
>>
>> Sure, but _why_ should it not exist? Many fiel
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 12:12:15AM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> > and you create a dependency between the tagger and the switch driver
> > which was supposed by design to not exist.
>
> Sure, but _why_ should it not exist? Many fields in the tag can only be
> correctly generated/interpreted i
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 23:58, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:07:14PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 18:21, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 04:44:31PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 13:17, Vladimir
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 22:33, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> There is really no need to recompute the static parts of the tags on
>> each skb. It would mean moving some knowledge of the tagging format to
>> the driver. But that boundary is pretty artificial for
>> mv88e6xxx. tag_dsa has no use outside of
> There is really no need to recompute the static parts of the tags on
> each skb. It would mean moving some knowledge of the tagging format to
> the driver. But that boundary is pretty artificial for
> mv88e6xxx. tag_dsa has no use outside of mv88e6xxx, and mv88e6xxx does
> not work with any other
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:07:14PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 18:21, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 04:44:31PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 13:17, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 07:04:08PM +0
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 18:21, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 04:44:31PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 13:17, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 07:04:08PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> >> Allow DSA drivers to support forward of
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 04:44:31PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 13:17, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 07:04:08PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> >> Allow DSA drivers to support forward offloading from a bridge by:
> >>
> >> - Passing calls to .nd
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 13:17, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 07:04:08PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> Allow DSA drivers to support forward offloading from a bridge by:
>>
>> - Passing calls to .ndo_dfwd_{add,del}_station to the drivers.
>>
>> - Recording the subordinate d
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 07:04:08PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> Allow DSA drivers to support forward offloading from a bridge by:
>
> - Passing calls to .ndo_dfwd_{add,del}_station to the drivers.
>
> - Recording the subordinate device of offloaded skbs in the control
> buffer so that the
Allow DSA drivers to support forward offloading from a bridge by:
- Passing calls to .ndo_dfwd_{add,del}_station to the drivers.
- Recording the subordinate device of offloaded skbs in the control
buffer so that the tagger can take the appropriate action.
Signed-off-by: Tobias Waldekranz
---
12 matches
Mail list logo
