[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86h78sqpq1.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 15:05:58 +0100
From: Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@...il.com>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Stephen Suryaputra <ssuryaextr@...il.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>,
Po-Hsu Lin <po-hsu.lin@...onical.com>,
Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add support for
bridge port locked mode
On sön, feb 20, 2022 at 11:21, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 12:00:34PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 04:51:47PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:
>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
>> > index ab41619a809b..46b7381899a0 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
>> > @@ -1234,6 +1234,39 @@ int mv88e6xxx_port_set_mirror(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
>> > return err;
>> > }
>> >
>> > +int mv88e6xxx_port_set_lock(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
>> > + bool locked)
>> > +{
>> > + u16 reg;
>> > + int err;
>> > +
>> > + err = mv88e6xxx_port_read(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0, ®);
>> > + if (err)
>> > + return err;
>> > +
>> > + reg &= ~MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_SA_FILT_MASK;
>> > + if (locked)
>> > + reg |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_SA_FILT_DROP_ON_LOCK;
>> > +
>> > + err = mv88e6xxx_port_write(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0, reg);
>> > + if (err)
>> > + return err;
>> > +
>> > + err = mv88e6xxx_port_read(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR, ®);
>> > + if (err)
>> > + return err;
>> > +
>> > + reg &= ~MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR_LOCKED_PORT;
>> > + if (locked)
>> > + reg |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR_LOCKED_PORT;
>> > +
>> > + err = mv88e6xxx_port_write(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR, reg);
>>
>> return mv88e6xxx_port_write(...);
>
> Not familiar with mv88e6xxx, but shouldn't there be a rollback of
> previous operations? Specifically mv88e6xxx_port_write()
>
If a register write function fails, I don't think that it would make
sense to try and resolve the situation by additional register write
calls (rollback).
>>
>> > + if (err)
>> > + return err;
>> > +
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists