netdev - Re: [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and common phys_port

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: <20180324160450.GF1891@nanopsycho>
Date:   Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:04:50 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, idosch@...lanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
        dirk.vandermerwe@...ronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
        ogerlitz@...lanox.com, dsahern@...il.com, vijaya.guvva@...ium.com,
        satananda.burla@...ium.com, raghu.vatsavayi@...ium.com,
        felix.manlunas@...ium.com, gospo@...adcom.com,
        sathya.perla@...adcom.com, vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com,
        tariqt@...lanox.com, eranbe@...lanox.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and
 common phys_port_name generation

Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 03:40:02PM CET, andrew@...n.ch wrote:
>> >The hardware and mechanical engineer is free to wire switch ports to
>> >the front panel however they want. That is why we put the netdev name
>> >in device tree.
>> 
>> Got it. Hmm, so I think that the port number can be made optional and
>> when it is present, it would be used to generate phys_port_name. If
>> not, perhaps devlink port index could be used instead.
>> 
>> So iiuc, you don't really need phys_port_name in dsa, as it provides
>> misleading names, right? Why is it implemented then?
>
>Hi Jiri
>
>Isn't the same true for all devices? It is not just DSA devices where
>the hardware engineer is free to wire up the front panel however they
>want, it can happen for any device.

In mlxsw, driver queries the FW to get this info.