[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <85eb9f54-a4de-969e-4658-38878d481292@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:59:52 -0500
From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
<nsekhar@...com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>, <ivecera@...hat.com>,
<francois.ozog@...aro.org>, <yogeshs@...com>, <spatton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RFC CPSW switchdev mode
On 06/02/2018 09:08 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 04:29:08PM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> Hi Ilias,
>
>
>> Second, Thanks a lot for your great work. I'm still testing it with different
>> use cases and trying to consolidate my reply for all questions.
>>
>> All, thanks for your comments.
>
> Hi Grygorii
>
> Something i've said to Ilias already. I would recommend you don't try
> to cover all your uses cases with the first version. Keep it simple
> and clean, don't do anything controversial and get it merged. Then add
> more features one by one. We can then discuss any odd ball features
> while being able to look at the complete system, driver, switchdev and
> the network stack.
>
yes. It definitely no problem from my side, except basic customer use-cases
simply not working without sw0p0, at least with current LKML :(
And I just have to look a little bit in the future as selected approach
expected to be extended on future SoC (and other parts of existing SoCs - ICSS-G SW switch)
where we going to have more features, like TSN, EST and packet Policing and Classification.
And I very, very appreciated for your (and all others) time and comments.
Thank you.
--
regards,
-grygorii
Powered by blists - more mailing lists