[Bridge] [PATCH net-next v4 2/8] switchdev: mrp: Extend ring_role_mrp and in_role_mrp

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 10:41:59PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> Add the member sw_backup to the structures switchdev_obj_ring_role_mrp
> and switchdev_obj_in_role_mrp. In this way the SW can call the driver in
> 2 ways, once when sw_backup is set to false, meaning that the driver
> should implement this completely in HW. And if that is not supported the
> SW will call again but with sw_backup set to true, meaning that the
> HW should help or allow the SW to run the protocol.
> 
> For example when role is MRM, if the HW can't detect when it stops
> receiving MRP Test frames but it can trap these frames to CPU, then it
> needs to return -EOPNOTSUPP when sw_backup is false and return 0 when
> sw_backup is true.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur at microchip.com>
> ---
>  include/net/switchdev.h | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/net/switchdev.h b/include/net/switchdev.h
> index 465362d9d063..b7fc7d0f54e2 100644
> --- a/include/net/switchdev.h
> +++ b/include/net/switchdev.h
> @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ struct switchdev_obj_ring_role_mrp {
>  	struct switchdev_obj obj;
>  	u8 ring_role;
>  	u32 ring_id;
> +	u8 sw_backup;
>  };
>  
>  #define SWITCHDEV_OBJ_RING_ROLE_MRP(OBJ) \
> @@ -161,6 +162,7 @@ struct switchdev_obj_in_role_mrp {
>  	u32 ring_id;
>  	u16 in_id;
>  	u8 in_role;
> +	u8 sw_backup;

What was wrong with 'bool'?

>  };
>  
>  #define SWITCHDEV_OBJ_IN_ROLE_MRP(OBJ) \
> -- 
> 2.27.0
> 

If a driver implements full MRP offload for a ring/interconnect
manager/automanager, should it return -EOPNOTSUPP when sw_backup=false?