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  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]
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 10:14:41 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        netdev <>,
        Vivien Didelot <>,
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <>,
        Antoine Tenart <>,
        Horatiu Vultur <>,
        "Allan W. Nielsen" <>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <>,
        Alexandru Marginean <>,
        Claudiu Manoil <>,
        "Madalin Bucur (OSS)" <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 11/11] net: dsa: ocelot: introduce driver for
 Seville VSC9953 switch

On 29/05/2020 01:09:16+0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 00:56, Andrew Lunn <> wrote:
> >
> > > Extending the Felix driver to probe a PCI as well as a platform device
> > > would have introduced unnecessary complexity. The 'meat' of both drivers
> > > is in drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot*.c anyway, so let's just
> > > duplicate the Felix driver, s/Felix/Seville/, and define the low-level
> > > bits in seville_vsc9953.c.
> >
> > Hi Vladimir
> >
> > That has resulted in a lot of duplicated code.
> >
> > Is there an overall family name for these switch?
> >
> > Could you add foo_set_ageing_time() with both felix and saville share?
> >
> >       Andrew
> Yes, it looks like I can. I can move Felix PCI probing to
> felix_vsc9959.c, Seville platform device probing to seville_vsc9953.c,
> and remove seville.c.
> I would not be in a position to know whether there's any larger family
> name which should be used here. According to
> "Ocelot is a low port count, small form factor Ethernet switch family
> for the Industrial IoT market". Seville would not qualify as part of
> the Ocelot family (high port count, no 1588) but that doesn't mean it
> can't use the Ocelot driver. As confusing as it might be for the
> people at Microchip, I would tend to call anything that probes as pure
> switchdev "ocelot" and anything that probes as DSA "felix", since

As ocelot can be used in a DSA configuration (even if it is not
implemented yet), I don't think this would be correct. From my point of
view, felix and seville are part of the ocelot family.

> these were the first 2 drivers that entered mainline. Under this
> working model, Seville would reuse the struct dsa_switch_ops
> felix_switch_ops, while having its own low-level seville_vsc9953.c
> that deals with platform integration specific stuff (probing, internal
> MDIO, register map, etc), and the felix_switch_ops would call into
> ocelot for the common functionalities.
> What do you think?
> -Vladimir

Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering

Powered by blists - more mailing lists