[ovs-dev] [patch net-next RFC 03/12] net: introduce generic switch devices support

Jiri Pirko jiri at resnulli.us
Sat Aug 23 09:17:26 UTC 2014


Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 03:02:10AM CEST, f.fainelli at gmail.com wrote:
>2014-08-22 5:56 GMT-07:00 Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>:
>> Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:42:04PM CEST, jhs at mojatatu.com wrote:
>>>On 08/21/14 13:05, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>2014-08-21 9:18 GMT-07:00 Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>:
>>>>>The goal of this is to provide a possibility to suport various switch
>>>>>chips. Drivers should implement relevant ndos to do so. Now there is a
>>>>>couple of ndos defines:
>>>>>- for getting physical switch id is in place.
>>>>>- for work with flows.
>>>>>
>>>>>Note that user can use random port netdevice to access the switch.
>>>>
>>>>I read through this patch set, and I still think that DSA is the
>>>>generic switch infrastructure we already have because it does provide
>>>>the following:
>>>>
>>>>- taking a generic platform data structure (C struct or Device Tree),
>>>>validate, parse it and map it to internal kernel structures
>>>>- instantiate per-port network devices based on the configuration data provided
>>>>- delegate netdev_ops to the switch driver and/or the CPU NIC when relevant
>>>>- provide support for hooking RX and TX traffic coming from the CPU NIC
>>>>
>>>>I would rather we build on the existing DSA infrastructure and add the
>>>>flow-related netdev_ops rather than having the two remain in
>>>>disconnect while flow-oriented switches driver get progressively
>>>>added. I guess I should take a closer look at the rocker driver to see
>>>>how hard would that be for you.
>>>>
>>>>What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>>I thought we had concluded that DSA was a good path forward?  Or maybe at
>>>this stage we need to have several alternative approaches
>>>and we eventually converge?
>>
>> That is true. I'm still unsure how to fit this on to DSA or how to change DSA
>> the way this fits. This is my quest now. Will report back in a week or so.
>
>I don't want to hold off this patch series, so let's proceed with your
>submission, since I believe John Fastabend would also directly benefit
>from this.
>
>In the meantime, I will keep working on DSA, and prototype changes
>with the rocker driver.
>
>Once we are confident we have bridged the gap, we can unify things.
>How does that sound?

Sounds good. 



More information about the dev mailing list