[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <455d5122-7716-4323-b712-9a7d84063c0c@broadcom.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:11:08 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>,
jonas.gorski@...il.com, andrew@...n.ch, olteanv@...il.com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, vivien.didelot@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dgcbueu@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 09/10] net: dsa: b53: fix b53_imp_vlan_setup for
BCM5325
On 5/31/25 03:13, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
> CPU port should be B53_CPU_PORT instead of B53_CPU_PORT_25 for
> B53_PVLAN_PORT_MASK register.
>
> Fixes: ff39c2d68679 ("net: dsa: b53: Add bridge support")
> Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
> index d5216ea2c984..802020eaea44 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
> @@ -543,6 +543,10 @@ void b53_imp_vlan_setup(struct dsa_switch *ds, int cpu_port)
> unsigned int i;
> u16 pvlan;
>
> + /* BCM5325 CPU port is at 8 */
> + if ((is5325(dev) || is5365(dev)) && cpu_port == B53_CPU_PORT_25)
> + cpu_port = B53_CPU_PORT;
Don't we get to that point only if we have invalid Device Tree settings?
In which case wouldn't a WARN_ON() be more adequate?
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists