From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD88C35257 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 23:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E2D2177B for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 23:07:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1601680076; bh=+IraDZ1X6TqbHjjccaG67Qpzn5eg7WC66k5owY+sfPk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=lpbz7ETMVX+qKE0hD7Pa3Pi0pxGD0H5yHuwF3PWK0jC62gEsRjydJGZtwGVWkLgRt YmX6JuQjsCwSP4JCpR2dJnZHhXlCw+YbtSwo+5wyOR0pGX898HUKwpCc17TCdXLmNf JHi56jpuagDtKaVOGElfjwIYQYnOlvWr9kbI188A= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725770AbgJBXHz (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 19:07:55 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:56032 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725283AbgJBXHz (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 19:07:55 -0400 Received: from kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com (unknown [163.114.132.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F9702074B; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 23:07:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1601680074; bh=+IraDZ1X6TqbHjjccaG67Qpzn5eg7WC66k5owY+sfPk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=WqCwHA0OU8tECmLdNEjZTX+R5LPoKpeJuRad2dRF2Up111rDiFL2/MDMTORObXLQS t4O4alGBsrw5rxIzkpjYhWN1oazLnwWNayGR75O/sP6TGByYWF0DjoHZj2hdzp9/fJ hDaZOiaA5evREKfUVGK3h4ZwQbqodSrYtbBBlgJk= Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:07:52 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Grygorii Strashko Cc: "David S. Miller" , , Vignesh Raghavendra , Sekhar Nori , , , Murali Karicheri Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: add multi port support in mac-only mode Message-ID: <20201002160752.1166cffe@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: <20201002160421.59363229@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> References: <20201001105258.2139-1-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <20201001160847.3b5d91f1@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20201002160421.59363229@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:04:21 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:56:43 +0300 Grygorii Strashko wrote: > > On 02/10/2020 02:08, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 13:52:50 +0300 Grygorii Strashko wrote: > > >> This series adds multi-port support in mac-only mode (multi MAC mode) to TI > > >> AM65x CPSW driver in preparation for enabling support for multi-port devices, > > >> like Main CPSW0 on K3 J721E SoC or future CPSW3g on K3 AM64x SoC. > > >> > > >> The multi MAC mode is implemented by configuring every enabled port in "mac-only" > > >> mode (all ingress packets are sent only to the Host port and egress packets > > >> directed to target Ext. Port) and creating separate net_device for > > >> every enabled Ext. port. > > > > > > Do I get it right that you select the mode based on platform? Can the > > > other mode still be supported on these platforms? > > > > > > Is this a transition to normal DSA mode where ports always have netdevs? > > > > The idea here is to start in multi mac mode by default, as we still > > have pretty high demand for this. Then, and we are working on it, the > > switchdev mode is going to be introduces (not DSA). The switch > > between modes will happen by using devlink option - the approach is > > similar to what was used for Sitara CPSW cpsw_new.c driver [1]. > > What's unclear from the patches is whether the default configuration > for already supported platforms will change? > > All the patches sound like they are "in preparation for support of K3 > J721E" etc. So this is just code restructuring with no user-visible > changes? Another way of putting the question perhaps would be - is num_ports always 1 for existing platforms?