Message-ID: <20150310221340.GA6465@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:13:40 -0700
From:	Mathieu Olivari <mathieu@...eaurora.org>
To:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux@...ck-us.net, jogo@...nwrt.org,
	f.fainelli@...il.com
Subject: Re: RFC: dsa: add support for multiple CPU ports

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:21:01PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:01:29PM -0700, Mathieu Olivari wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I???m writing a DSA driver for some QCA network switches already supported in
> > OpenWrt using swconfig. They connect to the CPU using MDIO for configuration,
> > and xMII ports for data. The main difference with what is supported comes from
> > the fact that most of these switches actually have multiple xMII connections to
> > the same CPU. Something like this:
> > (extending the picture from http://lwn.net/Articles/302333/)
> > 
> > 	+-----------+       +-----------+
> > 	|           | RGMII |           |
> > 	|       eth0+-------+           +------ 1000baseT MDI ("WAN")
> > 	|        wan|       |  7-port   +------ 1000baseT MDI ("LAN1")
> > 	|   CPU     |       |  ethernet +------ 1000baseT MDI ("LAN2")
> > 	|           | RGMII |  switch   +------ 1000baseT MDI ("LAN3")
> > 	|       eth1+-------+  w/5 PHYs +------ 1000baseT MDI ("LAN4")
> > 	|        lan|       |           |
> > 	+-----------+       +-----------+
> > 	          |   MDIO     |
> > 	          \------------/
> > 
> > In a typical configuration, we configure the switch to isolate WAN & LAN from
> > each other.
> 
> Hi Mathieu
> 
> By default, all DSA ports are isolated from each other. If you want to
> join them together you need to setup a bridge and add the ports to the
> bridge. There are patches being worked on to push this bridge state
> down into the hardware, so the hardware will then bridge across these
> ports, rather than having to do it in software. So long as you don't
> add WAN to the bridge, it will be kept isolated.
> 
> I had a different solution in mind for multiple CPU ports. I've no
> idea if it actually works though, i've not had time to investigate.
> It would actually put the host CPU ports into a switch trunk, and use
> team/bond driver on the host. You then get one logical 2Gbp link to
> the switch and run DSA over that.
> 

I could see it working on the Tx path - as the destination port is specified
in the header -, but on the Rx path, how would the switch figure out which
CPU port it should send the packet to?

These switches doesn't have a concept of bonding, so this decision is generally
based on the internal ARL table, and is automatically learnt by looking at the
src MAC@ of the incoming packets.
When using bonding, the switch would see both eth0 & eth1 MAC@ on both of
its CPU ports. The destination CPU port would be unexpected at best; I could
see some switches being able to support this, but most of them would not.

Thoughts?

> There have also been some patches to create trunks, but they were for
> normal ports, not CPU ports. They should however be a good starting
> point for what the switch driver needs to do to create a trunk towards
> the CPU.
> 
> I think this scheme might also work without having to change the DSA
> binding. There is nothing in the binding documentation that there can
> only be one CPU port. So if two or more are found, the DSA framework
> can do the trunking setup.
> 

At the very least, we would need to treat "dsa,ethernet" as an array,
and specify the list of ethernet device node that connects to the switch.
I still think putting this information in the port section makes sense,
as it represents the board layout more accurately than having a global
node at a dsa level.

>     Andrew
--
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