linux-phytec-ti

firewire net: Ignore spd and max_payload advertised by ARP.

Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> says:
| As far as I can tell, it would be best to ignore max_rec and sspd from ARP
| and NDP but keep using the respective information from firewire-core
| instead (handed over by fwnet_probe()).
|
| Why?  As I noted earlier, RFC 2734:1999 and RFC 3146:2001 were apparently
| written with a too simplistic notion of IEEE 1394 bus topology, resulting
| in max_rec and sspd in ARP-1394 and NDP-1394 to be useless, IMO.
|
| Consider a bus like this:
|
|     A ---- B ==== C
|
| A, B, C are all IP-over-1394 capable nodes.  ---- is an S400 cable hop,
| and ==== is an S800 cable hop.
|
| In case of unicasts or multicasts in which node A is involved as
| transmitter or receiver, as well as in case of broadcasts, the speeds
| S100, S200, S400 work and speed S400 is optimal.
|
| In case of anything else, IOW in case of unicasts or multicasts in which
| only nodes B and C are involved, the speeds S100, S200, S400, S800 work
| and speed S800 is optimal.
|
| Clearly, node A should indicate sspd = S400 in its ARP or NDP packets.
| But which sspd should nodes B and C set there?  Maybe they set S400, which
| would work but would waste half of the available bandwidth in the second
| case.  Or maybe they set S800, which is OK in the second case but would
| prohibit any communication with node A if blindly taken for correct.
|
| On the other hand, firewire-core *always* gives us the correct and optimum
| peer-to-peer speed and asynchronous packet payload, no matter how simple
| or complex the bus topology is and no matter in which temporal order nodes
| join the bus and are discovered.

CC: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>