[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5332B365.6050807@mojatatu.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:00:53 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
CC: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, andy@...yhouse.net,
dborkman@...hat.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, jesse@...ira.com,
pshelar@...ira.com, azhou@...ira.com,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, vyasevic <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/4] introduce infrastructure for support
of switch chip datapath
On 03/26/14 03:21, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
> Creating bonding of the switch ports does not fit into the picture at
> all. These port netdevices are just a representation of a port. Not
> actual netdevice where the data goes through.
>
> Please consider the case I gave already to this thread:
>
> switch chip
> ------------------------
> | | | | | | | CPU
> p1 p2 ...pn px py MNGMNT -----------
> | | | pcie
> | | | ---------------
> | | | | NIC0 NIC1
> | | ---pcie----- | |
> | ------someMII------- |
> ---------someMII-----------
>
> NIC0 and NIC1 are ordinary NICs like 8139too for example with no
> notion they are connected to a switch. They as completely
> independent on the mngmnt iface.
>
> There, actual data is coming through NIC0 and NIC1 which is
> completely separated
> from the p1...pn,px.px port representations.
>
> And if you understand it this way, it makes perfect sense to have a
> master device
> for these port representations.
>
I think you may be looking at some specific board design which has those
two NICs; there are typically many variations of such boards and they
have to be each dealt with slightly differently by whoever is porting.
Important detail is:
we already know how to deal with NICs - remove them from the diagram
and then the discussion is about the switch chip. I am assuming
the MNGMT interface is where the control is going to be. i.e
I can send table updates there, control the different port
charasterstics etc.
So Neil's option #1 is to have a driver controlling that interface
(->priv).
There's probably some DMA engine's for the datapath for one or more
of the ports this driver exposes...
Replace PCIE with DSA, a simulation chip, whatever the gazillion
crazy interfaces the openwrt guys have to deal with and we have
ourselves a consistent interface.
> Btw note this model fits into existing DSA as well I believe. The actual DSA
> devices whould act as NIC0, NIC1 and what would be added is the switch
> representation (couple of more netdevices to represent actual HW ports and
> their master)
>
Refer to my comments above.
cheers,
jamal
--
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