On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 10:52 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:

On 6/3/19 9:54 AM, Dan Williams wrote:

quoted

quoted

To be perfectly honest, at first I thought having IPA use rmnet
was a cargo cult thing like Dan suggested, because I didn't see

To be clear I only meant cargo-culting the naming, not any
functionality. Clearly IPA/rmnet/QMAP are pretty intimately
connected
at this point. But this goes back to whether IPA needs a netdev
itself
or whether you need an rmnet device created on top. If the former
then
I'd say no cargo-culting, if the later then it's a moot point
because
the device name will be rmnet%d anyway.

OK I thought you weren't sure why rmnet was a layer at all.  As I
said, I didn't have a very good understanding of why it was even
needed when I first started working on this.

No problem.

I can't (or won't) comment right now on whether IPA needs its own
netdev for rmnet to use.  The IPA endpoints used for the modem
network interfaces are enabled when the netdev is opened and
disabled when closed.  Outside of that, TX and RX are pretty
much immediately passed through to the layer below or above.
IPA currently has no other net device operations.

I don't really have issues with the patchset underneath the netdev
layer. I'm interested in how the various bits present themselves to
userspace, which is why I am trying to tie this in with Johannes'
conversation about WWAN devices, netdevs, channels, and how the various
drivers present API for creating data channels that map to different
modem contexts.

So let me rephrase. If the control plane has set up the default context
and sent a QMI Start Network message (or the network attached the
default one) and the resulting IP details are applied to the IPA netdev
can things just start sending data? Or do we need to create an rmnet on
top to get that working?

Dan


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel