[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56D0B964.4090002@elecsyscorp.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:45:28 +0000
From: Kevin Smith <kevin.smith@...csyscorp.com>
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel@...oirfairelinux.com" <kernel@...oirfairelinux.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 7/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: restore VLANTable map
control
Hi Vivien,
On 02/26/2016 12:16 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> + /* allow CPU port or DSA link(s) to send frames to every port */
> + if (dsa_is_cpu_port(ds, port) || dsa_is_dsa_port(ds, port)) {
> + output_ports = mask;
> + } else {
Is this always correct? Are there situations where a CPU or neighboring
switch should not be allowed to access another port? (e.g. Figure 6 or 7
in the 88E6352 functional specification).
Thanks,
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists