Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: dsa: make "label" property optional for dsa2

From: Jiri Pirko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 17:06:32 +0100

Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:45:33PM CET, [email-masked] wrote:
>Hi Jiri,
>
>Jiri Pirko <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>>>Extra question: shouldn't phys_port_{id,name} be switchdev attributes in
>>
>> Again, phys_port_id has nothing to do with switches. Should be removed
>> from dsa because its use there is incorrect.
>
>Florian, since 3a543ef just got in, can it be reverted?

Yes, please revert it. It is only in net-next.

>
>>>> I guess that it should be enough for you to implement
>>>> ndo_get_phys_port_name.
>>>
>>>Well, if this name must be unique on a system, it's not likely to happen
>>>until we agree that we use an ugly tXsYpZ template where X is a tree ID,
>>>or we assign system-wide unique IDs to switches, which requires a bit of
>>>changes.
>>
>> No. That should be unique within one switch. In mlxsw we name it "p1",
>> "p2", ...
>>
>> The final netdev names are:
>> enp3s0np1, enp3s0np2, ...
>
>OK perfect then, "p%d" sounds good. You seems to avoid "p0" in mlxsw, is
>there a reason for that?

We name these according to the front panel name. There's no "port 0"
on the front panel :)

>
>>>But again, this is not related to this patch ;-)
>>
>> It is! You are using phys_port_id, which is completely wrong. You should
>> not use it.
>
>I can resend this patch without the udev examples in the commit message
>if that can be less confusing.

Yes please.

>Thanks,
>        Vivien