netdev - Re: [RFC 0/4] net: l2switch: Provide support for L2 switch on i.MX28 SoC

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210617130821.465c7522@ktm>
Date:   Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:08:21 +0200
From:   Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>, stefan.agner@...adex.com,
        krzk@...nel.org, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] net: l2switch: Provide support for L2 switch on
 i.MX28 SoC

Hi Andrew,

> > > I would push back and say that the switch offers bridge
> > > acceleration for the FEC.   
> > 
> > Am I correct, that the "bridge acceleration" means in-hardware
> > support for L2 packet bridging?   
> 
> You should think of the hardware as an accelerator, not a switch. The
> hardware is there to accelerate what linux can already do. You setup a
> software bridge in linux, and then offload L2 switching to the
> accelerator. You setup vlans in linux, and then offload the filtering
> of them to the accelerator. If there is something linux can do, but
> the hardware cannot accelerate, you leave linux to do it in software.
> 
> > Do you propose to catch some kind of notification when user calls:
> > 
> > ip link add name br0 type bridge; ip link set br0 up;
> > ip link set lan1 up; ip link set lan2 up;
> > ip link set lan1 master br0; ip link set lan2 master br0;
> > bridge link

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [*]

> > 
> > And then configure the FEC driver to use this L2 switch driver?  
> 
> That is what switchdev does. There are various hooks in the network
> stack which call into switchdev to ask it to offload operations to the
> accelerator.

I'm a bit confused about the interfaces that pop up when I do enable
bridging acceleration.

Without bridge I do have:
- eth0 (this is a 'primary' interface -> it also controls MII/PHY for
  eth1)
- eth1 (it uses the MII/PHY control from eth0)

Both interfaces works correctly.

And after starting the bridge (and switchdev) with commands from [*] I
do have:

- br0 (created bridge - need to assign IP to it to communicate outside,
  even when routing is set via eth0, and eth0 has the same IP address)
- eth0 (just is used to control PHY - ifconfig up/down)
- eth1 (just is used to control PHY - ifconfig up/down)

And now the question, how internally shall I tackle the transmission
(i.e. DMA setups)?

Now, I do use some hacks to re-use code for eth0 to perform the
transmission from/to imx28 L2 switch. The eth1 is stopped (it only
controls the PHY - responds to MII interrupts).

The above setup works, and the code adjustment for fec_main.c driver is
really small.

However, I do wonder how conceptually it "mix" with br0 interface? I
could leave br0 as is, but then why do I need to asign the IP address
to it to communicate?
As I need to do it - then conceptually (re-)using eth0 internal
structures (and the driver in fact) looks like some kind of abusement. 
However, adding the transmission handling to br0 net device would bloat
and potentially duplicate the code.

I would prefer to re-use code from eth0 interface - it would be also
easier to cleanu up after disabling the L2 switch.

Any feedback and help is more than welcome.

> 
> > The differences from "normal" DSA switches:
> > 
> > 1. It uses mapped memory (for its register space) for
> > configuration/statistics gathering (instead of e.g. SPI, I2C)  
> 
> That does not matter. And there are memory mapped DSA switches. The
> DSA framework puts no restrictions on how the control plane works.
> 
> > (Of course the "Section 32.5.8.2" is not available)  
> 
> It is in the Vybrid datasheet :-)
> 
>    Andrew



Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

--

DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@...x.de

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped