linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] net: dsa: b53: add support for BCM5389/97/98 and BCM63XX ARL formats

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f0fbb7fc-d776-4507-b686-4cfe280099d9@broadcom.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 17:05:57 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] net: dsa: b53: add support for BCM5389/97/98
 and BCM63XX ARL formats

On 11/7/2025 12:07 AM, Jonas Gorski wrote:
> Currently b53 assumes that all switches apart from BCM5325/5365 use the
> same ARL formats, but there are actually multiple formats in use.
> 
> Older switches use a format apparently introduced with BCM5387/BCM5389,
> while newer chips use a format apparently introduced with BCM5395.
> 
> Note that these numbers are not linear, BCM5397/BCM5398 use the older
> format.
> 
> In addition to that the switches integrated into BCM63XX SoCs use their
> own format. While accessing these normal read/write ARL entries are the
> same format as BCM5389 one, the search format is different.
> 
> So in order to support all these different format, split all code
> accessing these entries into chip-family specific functions, and collect
> them in appropriate arl ops structs to keep the code cleaner.
> 
> Sent as net-next since the ARL accesses have never worked before, and
> the extensive refactoring might be too much to warrant a fix.

That seems entirely appropriate, thanks, I checked the 54389 and 63XX 
datasheets and your patches match, thank you!
-- 
Florian