On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:29:04PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> We need to set priorities here, and the highest priority is to get these
> patches accepted to enable more people to utilize DSA, so once we have
> more devices we can get to a longer term plan to get a better
> abstraction model
On 05/27/2016 01:57 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 04:39:05PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew, Florian,
>>
>> Here again, I'd suggested an implicit namespace for functions taking a
>> dsa_switch_tree structure as first argument, i.e. dsa_tree_do_foo().
>
> Using
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 04:39:05PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew, Florian,
>
> Here again, I'd suggested an implicit namespace for functions taking a
> dsa_switch_tree structure as first argument, i.e. dsa_tree_do_foo().
Using tree actually makes things worse, since tree is never
Hi Andrew, Florian,
Here again, I'd suggested an implicit namespace for functions taking a
dsa_switch_tree structure as first argument, i.e. dsa_tree_do_foo().
Since we are likely to spend some time in net/dsa, it'd be great to
introduce the new bindings and an intuitive API at the same time
The existing DSA binding has a number of limitations and problems. The
main problem is that it cannot represent a switch as a linux device,
hanging off some bus. It is limited to one CPU port. The DSA platform
device is artificial, and does not really represent hardware.
Implement a new binding
