> Right now we don't have any mechanism, and statically doing this from > Device Tree is too inflexible. I have been working on a parallel path > where we use the bridge (which is already accelerated when there is a > switch) in order to define groups of ports, the idea would be do to e.g: > > brctl addbr br-lan > brctl addbr br-lan eth0 > brctl addbr br-lan lan1 > ... > brctl addbr br-lan lan4 > > brctl addbr br-wan > brctl addbr br-wan eth1 > brctl addbr br-wan wan > > Assuming that lan1-lan4 are your LAN ports, and wan is your WAN port and > you have two CPU ports. Hi Florian I don't like this, on multiple levels. My wan port typically never has more than 40Mbps of traffic on it. So dedicating a whole 1Gbps ethernet to it makes no sense. I want to share eth1 bandwidth with the wan port, and some of the other ports. Meaning i would have to add eth1 to br-lan as well as br-wan. Does the bridge allow that? And what sort of hacks do you have to allow a port to be added to a bridge, but not used by the bridge? And what is the point of br-wan? It only has one real port in it. So i'm adding per-packet overhead which i don't need, just in order to signal to the hardware how it should statically route cpu traffic for a port. Now say i have one of the bigger marvell switches, with 11 ports, in an industrial application. I setup 3 or 4 bridges. I then need to add eth0 and eth1 to two different bridges. And say i use some ports without a bridge. How do i configure them? And how do i dump the current mapping? For me, this is the wrong architecture. What CPU port is used should be a port property, not a bridge property. I think we should use devlink. Add commands to dump the current mapping, and set it. Andrew -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
