[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9zDxlwSn1EfCTba@corigine.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 09:20:22 +0100
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To: netdev@...io-technology.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
"maintainer:MICROCHIP KSZ SERIES ETHERNET SWITCH DRIVER"
<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:RENESAS RZ/N1 A5PSW SWITCH DRIVER"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ETHERNET BRIDGE" <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: implementation of
dynamic ATU entries
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 06:00:00PM +0100, netdev@...io-technology.com wrote:
> On 2023-01-31 19:56, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> > > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> > > #include "ptp.h"
> > > #include "serdes.h"
> > > #include "smi.h"
> > > +#include "switchdev.h"
> > >
> > > static void assert_reg_lock(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip)
> > > {
> > > @@ -2726,18 +2727,25 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_add(struct
> > > dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > const unsigned char *addr, u16 vid,
> > > u16 fdb_flags, struct dsa_db db)
> > > {
> > > + bool is_dynamic = !!(fdb_flags & DSA_FDB_FLAG_DYNAMIC);
> > > struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
> > > + u8 state;
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > - /* Ignore entries with flags set */
> > > - if (fdb_flags)
> > > - return 0;
> > > + state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_STATIC;
> > > + if (is_dynamic)
> > > + state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_AGE_7_NEWEST;
> >
> > What if flags other than DSA_FDB_FLAG_DYNAMIC are set (in future)?
>
> They will have to be caught and handled here if there is support for it,
> e.g. something like...
>
> else if (someflag)
> dosomething();
>
> For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually exclusive,
> as they will not make sense together with the potential flags I know, but
> that can change at some time of course.
Yes, I see that is workable. I do feel that checking for other flags would
be a bit more robust. But as you say, there are none. So whichever
approach you prefer is fine by me.
> >
> > > + else
> > > + if (fdb_flags)
> >
> > nit: else if (fdb_flags)
> >
> > > + return 0;
> > >
> >
> > ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists