| Message ID | 20210115125259.22542-1-tobias@waldekranz.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: LAG fixes | expand |
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:52:57 +0100 Tobias Waldekranz wrote: > The kernel test robot kindly pointed out that Global 2 support in > mv88e6xxx is optional. > > This also made me realize that we should verify that the hardware > actually supports LAG offloading before trying to configure it. > > v1 -> v2: > - Do not allocate LAG ID mappings on unsupported hardware (Vladimir). > - Simplify _has_lag predicate (Vladimir). If I'm reading the discussion on v1 right there will be a v3, LMK if I got it wrong.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:02:46PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:52:57 +0100 Tobias Waldekranz wrote: > > The kernel test robot kindly pointed out that Global 2 support in > > mv88e6xxx is optional. > > > > This also made me realize that we should verify that the hardware > > actually supports LAG offloading before trying to configure it. > > > > v1 -> v2: > > - Do not allocate LAG ID mappings on unsupported hardware (Vladimir). > > - Simplify _has_lag predicate (Vladimir). > > If I'm reading the discussion on v1 right there will be a v3, > LMK if I got it wrong. I don't think a v3 was supposed to be coming, what made you think that?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:24:35 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:02:46PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:52:57 +0100 Tobias Waldekranz wrote: > > > The kernel test robot kindly pointed out that Global 2 support in > > > mv88e6xxx is optional. > > > > > > This also made me realize that we should verify that the hardware > > > actually supports LAG offloading before trying to configure it. > > > > > > v1 -> v2: > > > - Do not allocate LAG ID mappings on unsupported hardware (Vladimir). > > > - Simplify _has_lag predicate (Vladimir). > > > > If I'm reading the discussion on v1 right there will be a v3, > > LMK if I got it wrong. > > I don't think a v3 was supposed to be coming, what made you think that? I thought you concluded that the entire CONFIG_NET_DSA_MV88E6XXX_GLOBAL2 should go, you said: > So, roughly, you save 10%/13k. That hardly justifies the complexity IMO.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:46:22PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:24:35 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:02:46PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:52:57 +0100 Tobias Waldekranz wrote: > > > > The kernel test robot kindly pointed out that Global 2 support in > > > > mv88e6xxx is optional. > > > > > > > > This also made me realize that we should verify that the hardware > > > > actually supports LAG offloading before trying to configure it. > > > > > > > > v1 -> v2: > > > > - Do not allocate LAG ID mappings on unsupported hardware (Vladimir). > > > > - Simplify _has_lag predicate (Vladimir). > > > > > > If I'm reading the discussion on v1 right there will be a v3, > > > LMK if I got it wrong. > > > > I don't think a v3 was supposed to be coming, what made you think that? > > I thought you concluded that the entire CONFIG_NET_DSA_MV88E6XXX_GLOBAL2 > should go, you said: > > > So, roughly, you save 10%/13k. That hardly justifies the complexity IMO. That would be the first time that I hear of fixing a build failure due to a missing shim by refactoring a driver... Punctual issue, punctual fix, no?
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 15:46, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:24:35 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:02:46PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:52:57 +0100 Tobias Waldekranz wrote: >> > > The kernel test robot kindly pointed out that Global 2 support in >> > > mv88e6xxx is optional. >> > > >> > > This also made me realize that we should verify that the hardware >> > > actually supports LAG offloading before trying to configure it. >> > > >> > > v1 -> v2: >> > > - Do not allocate LAG ID mappings on unsupported hardware (Vladimir). >> > > - Simplify _has_lag predicate (Vladimir). >> > >> > If I'm reading the discussion on v1 right there will be a v3, >> > LMK if I got it wrong. >> >> I don't think a v3 was supposed to be coming, what made you think that? > > I thought you concluded that the entire CONFIG_NET_DSA_MV88E6XXX_GLOBAL2 > should go, you said: > >> So, roughly, you save 10%/13k. That hardly justifies the complexity IMO. Well, based on what Andrew said, my guess is that that is where we will end up. But since at the moment net-next does not build for configs without Global2-support, I would really appreciate it if this series could be applied to solve that immediate problem.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:55:47 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:46:22PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:24:35 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:02:46PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:52:57 +0100 Tobias Waldekranz wrote: > > > > > The kernel test robot kindly pointed out that Global 2 support in > > > > > mv88e6xxx is optional. > > > > > > > > > > This also made me realize that we should verify that the hardware > > > > > actually supports LAG offloading before trying to configure it. > > > > > > > > > > v1 -> v2: > > > > > - Do not allocate LAG ID mappings on unsupported hardware (Vladimir). > > > > > - Simplify _has_lag predicate (Vladimir). > > > > > > > > If I'm reading the discussion on v1 right there will be a v3, > > > > LMK if I got it wrong. > > > > > > I don't think a v3 was supposed to be coming, what made you think that? > > > > I thought you concluded that the entire CONFIG_NET_DSA_MV88E6XXX_GLOBAL2 > > should go, you said: > > > > > So, roughly, you save 10%/13k. That hardly justifies the complexity IMO. > > That would be the first time that I hear of fixing a build failure due > to a missing shim by refactoring a driver... Punctual issue, punctual > fix, no? Sure, without knowing the driver it's hard to tell if it's a matter of removing those stubs in the header, or more work, hence the question. Applied now, thanks!