Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:49:02 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 05/16] net: dsa: use ports list to setup switches
Message-ID: <20191021124902.GF16084@lunn.ch>
References: <20191020031941.3805884-1-vivien.didelot@gmail.com>
 <20191020031941.3805884-6-vivien.didelot@gmail.com>
 <21738767-7e98-6c4c-ba1c-bea29142d481@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <21738767-7e98-6c4c-ba1c-bea29142d481@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 07:42:15PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/19/2019 8:19 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> > Use the new ports list instead of iterating over switches and their
> > ports when setting up the switches and their ports.
> > 
> > At the same time, provide setup states and messages for ports and
> > switches as it is done for the trees.
> 
> Humm, that becomes quite noisy, would it make sense to have those
> messages only for non-user ports that are not already visible because
> they do not have a net_device?

I agree, it looks noise. Maybe change them to _dbg()?
 
> If you have multiple switches in a fabric, it might be convenient to use
> dev_info(dp->ds->dev, ...) to print your message so you can clearly
> identify which port belongs to which switch, which becomes even more
> important as it is all flattened thanks to lists now. What do you think?

I do think it needs to identify both the dst and the ds.

  Andrew