netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: phy: b53: switchdev driver for Broadcom BCM53xx switches

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:07:51 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jonas Gorski <jogo@...nwrt.org>,
	Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
	Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: b53: switchdev driver for Broadcom BCM53xx
 switches

Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 08:03:48AM CET, zajec5@...il.com wrote:
>On 25 February 2015 at 01:39, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 24/02/15 16:15, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 02:55:58PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> On 24/02/15 14:50, Rafa?? Mi??ecki wrote:
>>>>> As said in the commit message, these switches are really simple
>>>>> devices. We can't actually send packets to the particular ports
>>>>> (unless something has changed in the more recent hardware).
>>>>
>>>> These switches all support Broadcom tags, so you could use your host CPU
>>>> Ethernet MAC to send/receive packets to/from specific ports of the
>>>> switch, and then this is just like DSA, but everything that you say
>>>> below is true.
>>>
>>> If this hardware does support the concept of tags compatible to the
>>> existing Broadcom Starfighter 2, should we not do that? Is there a
>>> good reason these chips should use a difference abstraction than
>>> Starfighter 2 and the Marvell devices?
>>
>> No, I think that would be a reasonable thing to do, I am still a little
>> unclear how the older BCM5325 and friends work with respect to broadcom
>> tags, but regardless, DSA now understands switches that do not support
>> tags, so we should be good with some sort of b53 library.
>
>DSA doesn't allow me to use switch (hardware) VLANs. I would need to
>handle all forwarding in CPU. The most powerful Broadcom MIPS SoC -
>BCM4706 - can handle about 130 Mb/s. Less powerful - BCM4718A1 - only
>about 50 Mb/s.
>This is way too bad for performance when there is a 1 Gb/s switch and
>too bad for CPU usage.

Please correct me if I'm wrong Florian, but I believe that DSA does
allow setting up chips to do forwarding without packets going to CPU.

b53 looks like it fits nicely into DSA architecture. I believe that it
should be integrated there.

>
>I guess the whole idea of switchdev was to allow what proposed version
>of b53 does? To handle VLANs in hardware.
>
>-- 
>Rafał
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html