Linux Ethernet Bridging - Feb 2021 - [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v2 0/4] bridge: mrp: Extend br_mrp_switchdev_*

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 08:40:02 +0100 Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
> On 30/01/2021 04.01, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 21:52:37 +0100 Horatiu Vultur wrote:  
> >> This patch series extends MRP switchdev to allow the SW to have a
better
> >> understanding if the HW can implement the MRP functionality or it
needs
> >> to help the HW to run it. There are 3 cases:  
> 
> >> v2:
> >>  - fix typos in comments and in commit messages
> >>  - remove some of the comments
> >>  - move repeated code in helper function
> >>  - fix issue when deleting a node when sw_backup was true  
> > 
> > Folks who were involved in previous MRP conversations - does this look
> > good to you? Anyone planning to test?
> 
> I am planning to test these, but it's unlikely I'll get around to
it
> this week unfortunately.
Horatiu are you okay with deferring the series until Rasmus validates?
Given none of this HW is upstream now (AFAIU) this is an awkward set 
to handle. Having a confirmation from Rasmus would make us a little bit
more comfortable.

The 02/02/2021 11:50, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 08:40:02 +0100 Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > On 30/01/2021 04.01, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 21:52:37 +0100 Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > >> This patch series extends MRP switchdev to allow the SW to
have a better
> > >> understanding if the HW can implement the MRP functionality
or it needs
> > >> to help the HW to run it. There are 3 cases:
> >
> > >> v2:
> > >>  - fix typos in comments and in commit messages
> > >>  - remove some of the comments
> > >>  - move repeated code in helper function
> > >>  - fix issue when deleting a node when sw_backup was true
> > >
> > > Folks who were involved in previous MRP conversations - does this
look
> > > good to you? Anyone planning to test?
> >
> > I am planning to test these, but it's unlikely I'll get around
to it
> > this week unfortunately.
> 
> Horatiu are you okay with deferring the series until Rasmus validates?
> Given none of this HW is upstream now (AFAIU) this is an awkward set
> to handle. Having a confirmation from Rasmus would make us a little bit
> more comfortable.
It is perfectly fine for me to wait for Rasmus to validate this series.
Also I have started to have a look how to implement the switchdev calls
for Ocelot driver. I might have something by the end of the week, but
lets see.

-- 
/Horatiu