Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
CC:     Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        "bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: mrp: use stp state as substitute for
 unimplemented mrp state
Thread-Topic: [PATCH net] net: mrp: use stp state as substitute for
 unimplemented mrp state
Thread-Index: AQHW7cWjvIuaHRmLXUOsoJYbcslYzqotu6kAgAAOCQCAAAmFAIAAEreA
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:27:36 +0000
Message-ID: <20210118212735.okoov5ndybszd6m5@skbuf>
References: <20210118181319.25419-1-rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>
 <20210118185618.75h45rjf6qqberic@soft-dev3.localdomain>
 <20210118194632.zn5yucjfibguemjq@skbuf>
 <20210118202036.wk2fuwa3hysg4dmj@soft-dev3.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20210118202036.wk2fuwa3hysg4dmj@soft-dev3.localdomain>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2795B068D924114B9909A29669B28AC3@eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 24795b9e-97f5-4428-6380-08d8bbf7e00f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Jan 2021 21:27:36.1787
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 59F5VbZyNjfjLub1tC9Kj5PqKrKnM4UDW1q8EKBbfHUXAl1iwiSMizDzmzpZCJIGUswdmbmgyzPhJ+R0mv6z+w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR04MB5502
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:20:36PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 01/18/2021 19:46, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 07:56:18PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > The reason was to stay away from STP, because you can't run these two
> > > protocols at the same time. Even though in SW, we reuse port's state.
> > > In our driver(which is not upstreamed), we currently implement
> > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE and just call the
> > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_STP_STATE.
> >
> > And isn't Rasmus's approach reasonable, in that it allows unmodified
> > switchdev drivers to offload MRP port states without creating
> > unnecessary code churn?
>
> I am sorry but I don't see this as the correct solution. In my opinion,
> I would prefer to have 3 extra lines in the driver and have a better
> view of what is happening. Than having 2 calls in the driver for
> different protocols.

I think the question boils down to: is a MRP-unaware driver expected to
work with the current bridge MRP code?

> If it is not a problem to have STP calls when you configure the MRP,
> then why not just remove SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE?

Good question, why not?=