On 15-08-27 12:51 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:43:54AM CEST, john.fastab...@gmail.com wrote: >> On 15-08-27 12:27 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:16:44AM CEST, sfel...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> From: Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> In the switchdev model, we use netdevs to represent switchdev ports, but we >>>> have no representation for the switch itself. So, introduce a new >>>> switchdev >>>> device class so we can define semantics and programming interfaces for the >>>> switch itself. Switchdev device class isn't tied to any particular bus. >>>> >>>> This patch set is just the skeleton to get us started. It adds the sysfs >>>> object registration for the new class and defines a class-level attr "foo". >>>> With the new class, we could hook PM functions, for example, to handle >>>> power >>>> transitions at the switch level. I registered rocker and get: >>>> >>>> $ ls /sys/class/switchdev/5254001235010000/ >>>> foo power subsystem uevent >>> >>> No, please avoid adding anything to sysfs. If we need to add anything, >>> lets make is accesible using Netlink only. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> So what next? I'd rather not build APIs around sysfs, so we need a >>>> netlink API >>>> we can build on top of this. It's not really rtnl. Maybe genl would work? >>>> What ever it is, we'd need to teach iproute2 about a new 'switch' command. >>>> >>>> Netlink API would allow us to represent switch-wide objects such as >>>> registers, >>>> tables, stats, firmware, and maybe even control. I think with with netlink >>>> TLVs, we can create a framework for these objects but still allow the >>>> switch >>>> driver provide switch-specific info. For example, a table object: >>>> >>>> [TABLES] >>>> [TABLE] >>>> [FIELDS] >>>> [FIELD] >>>> [ID, TYPE] >>>> [DATA] >>>> [ID, VALUE] >>> >>> Alert! I feel that someone would like to abuse this iface for writing >>> configuration through. This should be read-only by design. I also think >>> that this should not be something switch-specific. I believe that NIC >>> drivers would benefit from this iface as well when they want to expose >>> something. I think we should use genl for this. >>> >> >> One place where read-only may not make sense is when the tables can >> be provisioned/configured. Many switches have the ability to be >> configured with "profiles". For a simple example some hardware use a >> single table that can be divided into an IPv4 and an IPv6 section. > > Okay. That should be configured via separate configuration Netlink > interface - ConfNetlink. I already spoke with Dave about need for > that one: Netlink based, use PCI-addr (other addr) as a handle, > well-defined config objects. The need to this interface is bigger and bigger. > > I can cook-up some RFC patch so you see what I'm talking about. >
Great. I originally buried it in the above API but maybe its best to keep them separate. I'll take a look at your RFC patches when they hit the list. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
