| Message ID | 20210128064112.372883-1-prasanna.vengateshan@microchip.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: dsa: microchip: DSA driver support for LAN937x switch | expand |
On 1/27/2021 10:41 PM, Prasanna Vengateshan wrote: > LAN937x is a Multi-Port 100BASE-T1 Ethernet Physical Layer switch > compliant with the IEEE 802.3bw-2015 specification. The device > provides 100 Mbit/s transmit and receive capability over a single > Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP) cable. LAN937x is successive revision > of KSZ series switch. This series of patches provide the DSA driver > support for Microchip LAN937X switch and it configures through > SPI interface. > > This driver shares some of the functions from KSZ common > layer. > > The LAN937x switch series family consists of following SKUs: > LAN9370: > - 4 T1 Phys > - 1 RGMII port > LAN9371: > - 3 T1 Phys & 1 TX Phy > - 2 RGMII ports > LAN9372: > - 5 T1 Phys & 1 TX Phy > - 2 RGMII ports > LAN9373: > - 5 T1 Phys > - 2 RGMII & 1 SGMII port > LAN9374: > - 6 T1 Phys > - 2 RGMII ports > > More support will be added at a later stage. It is great to see a new switch from Microchip being submitted for review. One thing that has bothered me as a DSA maintainer before though is that we have seen Microchip contribute new DSA drivers which are always welcome, however the maintenance and bug fixing of these drivers was spotty, thus leading to external contributors to take on the tasks of fixing bugs. Do you have a stronger commitment now to stay involved with reviewing/fixing bugs affecting Microchip DSA drivers and to a larger extent the framework itself? Could you also feed back to your hardware organization to settle on a tag format that is not a snowflake? Almost *every* switch you have has a different tagging format, this is absurd. All other vendors in tree have been able to settle on at most 2 or 3 different tagging formats over their switching product life span (for some vendors this dates back 20 years ago). I will provide a more detailed review later on. > > Prasanna Vengateshan (8): > dt-bindings: net: dsa: dt bindings for microchip lan937x > net: dsa: microchip: add tag handling for Microchip LAN937x > net: dsa: microchip: add DSA support for microchip lan937x > net: dsa: microchip: add support for phylink management > net: dsa: microchip: add support for ethtool port counters > net: dsa: microchip: add support for port mirror operations > net: dsa: microchip: add support for fdb and mdb management > net: dsa: microchip: add support for vlan operations > > .../bindings/net/dsa/microchip,lan937x.yaml | 115 ++ > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > drivers/net/dsa/microchip/Kconfig | 12 + > drivers/net/dsa/microchip/Makefile | 5 + > drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.h | 1 + > drivers/net/dsa/microchip/lan937x_dev.c | 895 ++++++++++++++ > drivers/net/dsa/microchip/lan937x_dev.h | 79 ++ > drivers/net/dsa/microchip/lan937x_main.c | 1037 +++++++++++++++++ > drivers/net/dsa/microchip/lan937x_reg.h | 955 +++++++++++++++ > drivers/net/dsa/microchip/lan937x_spi.c | 104 ++ > include/net/dsa.h | 2 + > net/dsa/Kconfig | 4 +- > net/dsa/tag_ksz.c | 74 ++ > 13 files changed, 3282 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/microchip,lan937x.yaml > create mode 100644 drivers/net/dsa/microchip/lan937x_dev.c > create mode 100644 drivers/net/dsa/microchip/lan937x_dev.h > create mode 100644 drivers/net/dsa/microchip/lan937x_main.c > create mode 100644 drivers/net/dsa/microchip/lan937x_reg.h > create mode 100644 drivers/net/dsa/microchip/lan937x_spi.c >
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:55:58AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Could you also feed back to your hardware organization to settle on a > tag format that is not a snowflake? Almost *every* switch you have has a > different tagging format, this is absurd. All other vendors in tree have > been able to settle on at most 2 or 3 different tagging formats over > their switching product life span (for some vendors this dates back 20 > years ago). You can't stop them from innovating, Florian :(
Hi Florian, Wish you a happy and safe new year. Thanks for your time to review new patches. > It is great to see a new switch from Microchip being submitted for > review. One thing that has bothered me as a DSA maintainer before though > is that we have seen Microchip contribute new DSA drivers which are > always welcome, however the maintenance and bug fixing of these drivers > was spotty, thus leading to external contributors to take on the tasks > of fixing bugs. Do you have a stronger commitment now to stay involved > with reviewing/fixing bugs affecting Microchip DSA drivers and to a > larger extent the framework itself? Admit that Microchip's activities on community, especially on DSA drivers, was not active for a while. We are going to do our best to get involved more on community including reviewing and frameworks. You might already start seeing review and comments on community from Microchip recently. > Could you also feed back to your hardware organization to settle on a > tag format that is not a snowflake? Almost *every* switch you have has a > different tagging format, this is absurd. All other vendors in tree have > been able to settle on at most 2 or 3 different tagging formats over > their switching product life span (for some vendors this dates back 20 > years ago). Understand this point too. Actually, those products are developed over time. Sometime it is not avoidable to add new stuff. But, Yes, it would be better to design ahead with reserved fields. Thanks again on your reviews and comments, will gear up on DSA works. Best Regards, Woojung