[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6f70da58-b68b-4a93-b369-2cc86e9158d4@arinc9.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 10:02:07 +0300
From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
To: Matthias Schiffer <mschiffer@...verse-factory.net>,
Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>, DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
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>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: mt7530: add support for bridge
port isolation
On 16/06/2024 09:52, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> On 15/06/2024 01:21, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
>> Remove a pair of ports from the port matrix when both ports have the
>> isolated flag set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <mschiffer@...verse-factory.net>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
>> drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
>> index ecacaefdd694..44939379aba8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
>> @@ -1303,7 +1303,8 @@ mt7530_stp_state_set(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, u8 state)
>> }
>> static void mt7530_update_port_member(struct mt7530_priv *priv, int port,
>> - const struct net_device *bridge_dev, bool join)
>> + const struct net_device *bridge_dev,
>> + bool join)
>
> Run git clang-format on this patch as well please.
>
>> __must_hold(&priv->reg_mutex)
>> {
>> struct dsa_port *dp = dsa_to_port(priv->ds, port), *other_dp;
>> @@ -1311,6 +1312,7 @@ static void mt7530_update_port_member(struct mt7530_priv *priv, int port,
>> struct dsa_port *cpu_dp = dp->cpu_dp;
>> u32 port_bitmap = BIT(cpu_dp->index);
>> int other_port;
>> + bool isolated;
>> dsa_switch_for_each_user_port(other_dp, priv->ds) {
>> other_port = other_dp->index;
>> @@ -1327,7 +1329,9 @@ static void mt7530_update_port_member(struct mt7530_priv *priv, int port,
>> if (!dsa_port_offloads_bridge_dev(other_dp, bridge_dev))
>> continue;
>> - if (join) {
>> + isolated = p->isolated && other_p->isolated;
>> +
>> + if (join && !isolated) {
>> other_p->pm |= PCR_MATRIX(BIT(port));
>> port_bitmap |= BIT(other_port);
>> } else {
>
> Why must other_p->isolated be true as well? If I understand correctly, when
> a user port is isolated, non isolated ports can't communicate with it
> whilst the CPU port can. If I were to isolate a port which is the only
> isolated one at the moment, the isolated flag would not be true. Therefore,
> the isolated port would not be removed from the port matrix of other user
> ports. Why not only check for p->isolated?
The concept of port isolation is that the isolated port can only
communicate with non-isolated ports so the current implementation looks ok.
Which switch models did you test this on; MT7530, MT7531, MT7988 SoC
switch? I will test it on MT7530 and MT7531 tomorrow evening.
Arınç
Powered by blists - more mailing lists