Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:18:06PM CET, john.fastab...@gmail.com wrote: >On 16-11-02 01:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 04:13:32PM CET, john.fastab...@gmail.com wrote:
[...] >[...]> >>> >>> Same question as above are we _really_ talking about pushing the entire >>> programmability of the device via 'tc'. If so we need to have a vendor >>> say they will support and implement this? >> >> We need some API, and I believe that TC is perfectly suitable for that. >> Why do you think it's a problem? >> > >For runtime configuration completely agree. For device configuration >I don't see the advantage of adding an entire device specific compiler >in the driver. The device is a set of CAMs, TCAMs, ALUs, instruction >caches, etc. its not like a typical NIC/switch where you just bang >some registers. Unless its all done in firmware but that creates an >entirely different set of problems like how to update your compiler. > >Bottom line we need to have a proof point of a driver in kernel >to see exactly how a P4 configuration would work. Again runtime config >and device topology/capabilities discovery I'm completely on board. I think we need to implement P4 world in rocker. Any volunteer? :)
