Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and common phys_port_name generation

From: Jiri Pirko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:04:50 +0100

Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 03:40:02PM CET, [email-masked] wrote:
>> >The hardware and mechanical engineer is free to wire switch ports to
>> >the front panel however they want. That is why we put the netdev name
>> >in device tree.
>> 
>> Got it. Hmm, so I think that the port number can be made optional and
>> when it is present, it would be used to generate phys_port_name. If
>> not, perhaps devlink port index could be used instead.
>> 
>> So iiuc, you don't really need phys_port_name in dsa, as it provides
>> misleading names, right? Why is it implemented then?
>
>Hi Jiri
>
>Isn't the same true for all devices? It is not just DSA devices where
>the hardware engineer is free to wire up the front panel however they
>want, it can happen for any device.

In mlxsw, driver queries the FW to get this info.