Allan W. Nielsen
2020-Oct-05 13:07 UTC
[Bridge] [net-next v2 10/11] bridge: switchdev: cfm: switchdev interface implementation
Hi Jiri On 01.10.2020 14:49, Jiri Pirko wrote:>EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > >Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:30:18PM CEST, henrik.bjoernlund at microchip.com wrote: >>This is the definition of the CFM switchdev interface. >> >>The interface consist of these objects: >> SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM, >> SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CONFIG_CFM, >> SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CONFIG_CFM, >> SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM, >> SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CCM_TX_CFM, >> SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_STATUS_CFM, >> SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PEER_MEP_STATUS_CFM >> >>MEP instance add/del >> switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM) >> switchdev_port_obj_del(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM) >> >>MEP cofigure >> switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CONFIG_CFM) >> >>MEP CC cofigure >> switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CONFIG_CFM) >> >>Peer MEP add/del >> switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM) >> switchdev_port_obj_del(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM) >> >>Start/stop CCM transmission >> switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CCM_TX_CFM) >> >>Get MEP status >> switchdev_port_obj_get(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_STATUS_CFM) >> >>Get Peer MEP status >> switchdev_port_obj_get(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PEER_MEP_STATUS_CFM) >> >>Reviewed-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur at microchip.com> >>Signed-off-by: Henrik Bjoernlund <henrik.bjoernlund at microchip.com> > >You have to submit the driver parts as a part of this patchset. >Otherwise it is no good.Fair enough. With MRP we did it like this, and after Nik asked for details on what is being offload, we thought that adding this would help. The reason why we did not include the implementation of this interface is that it is for a new SoC which is still not fully available which is why we have not done the basic SwitchDev driver for it yet. But the basic functionality clearly needs to come first. Our preference is to continue fixing the comments we got on the pure SW implementation and then get back to the SwitchDev offloading. This will mean dropping the last 2 patches in the serie. Does that work for you Jiri, and Nik? /Allan
Nikolay Aleksandrov
2020-Oct-06 10:50 UTC
[Bridge] [net-next v2 10/11] bridge: switchdev: cfm: switchdev interface implementation
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 15:07 +0200, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:> Hi Jiri > > On 01.10.2020 14:49, Jiri Pirko wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > > Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:30:18PM CEST, henrik.bjoernlund at microchip.com wrote: > > > This is the definition of the CFM switchdev interface. > > > > > > The interface consist of these objects: > > > SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM, > > > SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CONFIG_CFM, > > > SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CONFIG_CFM, > > > SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM, > > > SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CCM_TX_CFM, > > > SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_STATUS_CFM, > > > SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PEER_MEP_STATUS_CFM > > > > > > MEP instance add/del > > > switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM) > > > switchdev_port_obj_del(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM) > > > > > > MEP cofigure > > > switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CONFIG_CFM) > > > > > > MEP CC cofigure > > > switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CONFIG_CFM) > > > > > > Peer MEP add/del > > > switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM) > > > switchdev_port_obj_del(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM) > > > > > > Start/stop CCM transmission > > > switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CCM_TX_CFM) > > > > > > Get MEP status > > > switchdev_port_obj_get(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_STATUS_CFM) > > > > > > Get Peer MEP status > > > switchdev_port_obj_get(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PEER_MEP_STATUS_CFM) > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur at microchip.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Henrik Bjoernlund <henrik.bjoernlund at microchip.com> > > > > You have to submit the driver parts as a part of this patchset. > > Otherwise it is no good. > Fair enough. > > With MRP we did it like this, and after Nik asked for details on what is > being offload, we thought that adding this would help. > > The reason why we did not include the implementation of this interface > is that it is for a new SoC which is still not fully available which is > why we have not done the basic SwitchDev driver for it yet. But the > basic functionality clearly needs to come first. > > Our preference is to continue fixing the comments we got on the pure SW > implementation and then get back to the SwitchDev offloading. > > This will mean dropping the last 2 patches in the serie. > > Does that work for you Jiri, and Nik? > > /Allan >Sounds good to me. Sorry I was unresponsive last week, but I was sick and couldn't get to netdev at . I'll review the set today. Cheers, Nik