[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <89492624-84f2-ca73-75dd-7fa10819ad09@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:42:07 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@...ine-koenig.org>,
Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: dsa: make "label" property optional for
dsa2
On 01/09/2017 08:06 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:45:33PM CET, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com wrote:
>> Hi Jiri,
>>
>> Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> writes:
>>
>>>> Extra question: shouldn't phys_port_{id,name} be switchdev attributes in
>>>
>>> Again, phys_port_id has nothing to do with switches. Should be removed
>>> from dsa because its use there is incorrect.
>>
>> Florian, since 3a543ef just got in, can it be reverted?
>
> Yes, please revert it. It is only in net-next.
Maybe the use case can be understood before reverting the change. How do
we actually the physical port number of an Ethernet switch per-port
network device? The name is not enough, because there are plenty of
cases where we need to manipulate a physical port number (be it just for
informational purposes).
Should we just amend the existing description of ndo_get_phys_port_id()?
Should we introduce another ndo for that?
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists