Hi Jiri,
Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> 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?
>>> 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?
>>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.
Thanks,
Vivien
