[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ2oMh+ciCMb_thn5TV9n_N+mgcUj49sg+4m9O6BOVjpYLEVdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 23:40:35 +0300
From: Ran Shalit <ranshalit@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cascaded switch
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:29 PM, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I mean the same terminology used in marvell's switch.(I don't think
>> there is more than one terminology for this, please correct me if
>> wrong).
>> Anyway, I can see examples how it is done, but I don't understand the
>> benefit of this constellation, and why device tree needs to be
>> familiar with it.
>>
>> < switch 1 >---port10--------port10- < switch 2 >
>> | ....| | | ....| |
>> port 1-9 | port 1-9 |
>> | |
>> | |
>> <cpu>--mdio----------------------------------------------
>
> Your ASCII art is all messed up, but i get what you mean.
>
> This is the D in DSA. You would use this when a single switch does not
> have enough ports for your use case. So you use two switches.
>
> You need to tell each switch what links are used to get to other
> switches. There is an internal routing table. So you need to describe
> these links in device tree.
>
I understand, thanks,
So, it is used so that the 2 switch will behave as if it is one big switch.
Yet, how does it change the way the ports appears in "ifconfig" ?
Is it that if they were separate switch I wouldn't see incremental
numbers in "lanX" in ifconfig (as is probably the result in cascaded
switch) ?
Regards,
ranran
> Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists