linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Documentation: devicetree: add multiple cpu port DSA binding

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]

Message-ID: <20170607211002.ubljfplyexjb6dyl@rob-hp-laptop>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:10:02 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Documentation: devicetree: add multiple cpu port
 DSA binding

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:32:29PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 05/30/2017 03:44 AM, John Crispin wrote:
> > Extend the DSA binding documentation, adding the new property required
> > when there is more than one CPU port attached to the switch.
> > 
> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
> > Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/dsa.txt | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/dsa.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/dsa.txt
> > index cfe8f64eca4f..c164eb38ccc5 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/dsa.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/dsa.txt
> > @@ -55,6 +55,11 @@ A user port has the following optional property:
> >  - label			: Describes the label associated with this port, which
> >                            will become the netdev name.
> >  
> > +- cpu			: Option for non "cpu"/"dsa" ports. A phandle to a
> > +			  "cpu" port, which will be used for passing packets
> > +			  from this port to the host. If not present, the first
> > +			  "cpu" port will be used.
> 
> So this option essentially allow us to "partition" the switch between
> vectors of ports and their upstream/CPU port.

Could this be more generic? This is basically saying route all packets 
on this port to another port. Maybe there's some usecase to route to 
non-cpu ports?

> While using Device Tree is an obvious choice for making the initial
> partitioning, it seems like we are missing a configuration mechanism
> whereby we can properly assign ports to a specific upstream CPU port.

What determines how things are routed/partitioned? If it is purely user 
choice then I don't think this should be in DT.

> Let's move the actual discussion into patch 2 in order not to pollute
> the DT maintainers' inbox.