On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:23:45PM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:

On 06/02/2018 07:26 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

quoted

*After this patch set*: goal keep things working the same as max as
possible and get rid of TI custom tool.

We are happy to keep things the same, if they fit with the switchdev
model. Anything in your customer TI tool/model which does not fit the
switchdev model you won't be able to keep, except if we agree to
extend the model.

Right. That's the main goal of RFC to identify those gaps.

quoted

I can say now, sw0p0 is going to cause problems. I really do suggest
you drop it for the moment in order to get a minimal driver
accepted. sw0p0 does not fit the switchdev model.

Honestly, this is not the first patchset and we started without sw0p0,
but then.... (with current LKML)
- default vlan offloading breaks traffic reception to P0
 (Ilias saying it's fixed in next - good)
- adding vlan to P1/P2 works, but not for P0 (again as per Ilias -fixed)
- mcast - no way to manually add static record and include or exclude P0.


:( above are basic functionality required.

For a DSA driver, this is way more than basic. A basic DSA driver just
provides interfaces, and does everything in software. No offload at
all. Generally, FDB offload is next, then MDB, and then VLAN, each as
separate patch sets.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if all this reworking and switchdev conversation would make sense
if we will not be able to fit Ivan's work in new CPSW driver model ;..(
and do AVB bridge.

AVB bridge should fit the switchdev model. You can offload TC via
switchdev e.g. the b53 has mirred, mellonex has flower and a lot more.

      Andrew