[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090320212310.GZ4738@xi.wantstofly.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:23:11 +0100
From: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Gary Thomas <gary@...assoc.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...u.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dsa: add switch chip cascading support
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:16:18PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > For the example topology above, the dsa platform data would look
> > something like this:
> >
> > static struct dsa_chip_data sw[2] = {
> > {
> > .mii_bus = &foo,
> > .sw_addr = 1,
> > .port_names[0] = "p1",
> > .port_names[1] = "p2",
> > .port_names[2] = "p3",
> > .port_names[3] = "p4",
> > .port_names[4] = "p5",
> > .port_names[5] = "p6",
> > .port_names[6] = "p7",
> > .port_names[7] = "p8",
> > .port_names[9] = "dsa",
> > .port_names[10] = "cpu",
> > .rtable = (s8 []){ -1, 9, },
> [...]
>
> Is there supposed to be a gap in the numbering here? The diagram above
> seemed to number the ports 1-10 but I'm guessing the internal numbering
> of those would be 0-9.
Yeah, that was intended. On this particular chip model, ports 0-7
are RJ45 ports, 8-9 are SERDES ports, and 10 can either be SERDES or
(R)GMII -- so 10 is a natural choice for the cpu port, 8 and 9 can
be used as interconnect ports to other switches, and 0-7 are used
to connect end-stations to. If there was another switch chip, we
could connect it to port 8 of switch #0.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists