Re: [net-next v2 10/11] bridge: switchdev: cfm: switchdev interface implementation

[Jiri Pirko]

Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 03:07:12PM CEST, allan.nielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Hi Jiri
>
>On 01.10.2020 14:49, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>> 
>> Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:30:18PM CEST, henrik.bjoernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > This is the definition of the CFM switchdev interface.
>> > 
>> > The interface consist of these objects:
>> >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM,
>> >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CONFIG_CFM,
>> >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CONFIG_CFM,
>> >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM,
>> >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CCM_TX_CFM,
>> >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_STATUS_CFM,
>> >    SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PEER_MEP_STATUS_CFM
>> > 
>> > MEP instance add/del
>> >    switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM)
>> >    switchdev_port_obj_del(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CFM)
>> > 
>> > MEP cofigure
>> >    switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_CONFIG_CFM)
>> > 
>> > MEP CC cofigure
>> >    switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CONFIG_CFM)
>> > 
>> > Peer MEP add/del
>> >    switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM)
>> >    switchdev_port_obj_del(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_PEER_MEP_CFM)
>> > 
>> > Start/stop CCM transmission
>> >    switchdev_port_obj_add(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_CC_CCM_TX_CFM)
>> > 
>> > Get MEP status
>> >       switchdev_port_obj_get(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_MEP_STATUS_CFM)
>> > 
>> > Get Peer MEP status
>> >       switchdev_port_obj_get(SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PEER_MEP_STATUS_CFM)
>> > 
>> > Reviewed-by: Horatiu Vultur  <horatiu.vultur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Henrik Bjoernlund  <henrik.bjoernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> You have to submit the driver parts as a part of this patchset.
>> Otherwise it is no good.
>Fair enough.
>
>With MRP we did it like this, and after Nik asked for details on what is
>being offload, we thought that adding this would help.
>
>The reason why we did not include the implementation of this interface
>is that it is for a new SoC which is still not fully available which is
>why we have not done the basic SwitchDev driver for it yet. But the
>basic functionality clearly needs to come first.
>
>Our preference is to continue fixing the comments we got on the pure SW
>implementation and then get back to the SwitchDev offloading.
>
>This will mean dropping the last 2 patches in the serie.
>
>Does that work for you Jiri, and Nik?

Sure.

>
>/Allan
>