Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/4] Cross-chip bridging for disjoint DSA trees

2020-05-07 Thread Florian Fainelli
On 5/7/2020 3:15 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Vladimir Oltean > Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 19:07:32 +0300 > >> What does it mean that this series is "deferred" in patchwork? > > I need it to be reviewed, nobody reviewed it for days so I just toss > it in the deferred state. > > I don't feel co

Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/4] Cross-chip bridging for disjoint DSA trees

2020-05-07 Thread David Miller
From: Vladimir Oltean Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 19:07:32 +0300 > What does it mean that this series is "deferred" in patchwork? I need it to be reviewed, nobody reviewed it for days so I just toss it in the deferred state. I don't feel comfortable applying this without Andrew/Florian's review, but

Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/4] Cross-chip bridging for disjoint DSA trees

2020-05-07 Thread Vladimir Oltean
Hi David, On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 01:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > From: Vladimir Oltean > > This series adds support for boards where DSA switches of multiple types > are cascaded together. Actually this type of setup was brought up before > on netdev, and it looks like utilizing disjoint trees

[PATCH v3 net-next 0/4] Cross-chip bridging for disjoint DSA trees

2020-05-03 Thread Vladimir Oltean
From: Vladimir Oltean This series adds support for boards where DSA switches of multiple types are cascaded together. Actually this type of setup was brought up before on netdev, and it looks like utilizing disjoint trees is the way to go: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/7/7/225 The trouble with dis