| Message ID | 20160829203246.18811-4-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
Hi Vivien > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c > index 93abfff..812cb47 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c > @@ -2240,6 +2240,15 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_one(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, > fdb->ndm_state = NUD_NOARP; > else > fdb->ndm_state = NUD_REACHABLE; > + } else { Rather than else, i think it would be safer to do if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_MDB) { > + struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb; > + > + if (!is_multicast_ether_addr(addr.mac)) > + continue; > + > + mdb = SWITCHDEV_OBJ_PORT_MDB(obj); > + mdb->vid = vid; > + ether_addr_copy(mdb->addr, addr.mac); > } It should not happen, but the day it does, we get very confused... > +static int mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_dump(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, > + struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb, > + int (*cb)(struct switchdev_obj *obj)) > +{ > + struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds_to_priv(ds); > + int err; > + > + mutex_lock(&chip->reg_lock); > + err = mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump(chip, port, &mdb->obj, cb); > + mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock); > + > + return err; > +} Isn't this identical to mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_dump()? Maybe we should just have one function, and register it twice? Andrew
Hi Andrew, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> writes: > Hi Vivien > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c >> index 93abfff..812cb47 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c >> @@ -2240,6 +2240,15 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_one(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, >> fdb->ndm_state = NUD_NOARP; >> else >> fdb->ndm_state = NUD_REACHABLE; >> + } else { > > Rather than else, i think it would be safer to do > > if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_MDB) { >> + struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb; >> + >> + if (!is_multicast_ether_addr(addr.mac)) >> + continue; >> + >> + mdb = SWITCHDEV_OBJ_PORT_MDB(obj); >> + mdb->vid = vid; >> + ether_addr_copy(mdb->addr, addr.mac); >> } > > It should not happen, but the day it does, we get very confused... Do you mean the something like this? if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_FDB) { ... } else if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_MDB) { ... } else { return -EOPNOTSUPP; } I'm OK with that if you think it is better. >> +static int mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_dump(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, >> + struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb, >> + int (*cb)(struct switchdev_obj *obj)) >> +{ >> + struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds_to_priv(ds); >> + int err; >> + >> + mutex_lock(&chip->reg_lock); >> + err = mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump(chip, port, &mdb->obj, cb); >> + mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock); >> + >> + return err; >> +} > > Isn't this identical to mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_dump()? Maybe we should > just have one function, and register it twice? No the signatures are differentes. See _fdb vs. _mdb. They are basically the same thing (at least, from the switch driver's point of view). We can abstract the FDB (unicast and multicast) related operations directly in the DSA layer, but I think it is better to map directly the switchdev obj operations for the moment... What do you guys think? Thanks, Vivien
> Do you mean the something like this? > > if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_FDB) { > ... > } else if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_MDB) { > ... > } else { > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > } Hi Vivien The -ENONOTSUPP is even better. I was not going as far as that. > No the signatures are differentes. See _fdb vs. _mdb. Ah, missed that. Then two functions are O.K. I don't think we should consolidate it in the DSA layer. Andrew
Hello. On 08/31/2016 05:46 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c >>> index 93abfff..812cb47 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c >>> @@ -2240,6 +2240,15 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_one(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, >>> fdb->ndm_state = NUD_NOARP; >>> else >>> fdb->ndm_state = NUD_REACHABLE; >>> + } else { >> >> Rather than else, i think it would be safer to do >> >> if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_MDB) { >>> + struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb; >>> + >>> + if (!is_multicast_ether_addr(addr.mac)) >>> + continue; >>> + >>> + mdb = SWITCHDEV_OBJ_PORT_MDB(obj); >>> + mdb->vid = vid; >>> + ether_addr_copy(mdb->addr, addr.mac); >>> } >> >> It should not happen, but the day it does, we get very confused... > > Do you mean the something like this? > > if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_FDB) { > ... > } else if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_MDB) { > ... > } else { > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > } > > I'm OK with that if you think it is better. Just code it as a *switch*, please. :-) [...] MBR, Sergei
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c index 93abfff..812cb47 100644 --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c @@ -2240,6 +2240,15 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_one(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, fdb->ndm_state = NUD_NOARP; else fdb->ndm_state = NUD_REACHABLE; + } else { + struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb; + + if (!is_multicast_ether_addr(addr.mac)) + continue; + + mdb = SWITCHDEV_OBJ_PORT_MDB(obj); + mdb->vid = vid; + ether_addr_copy(mdb->addr, addr.mac); } err = cb(obj); @@ -3988,6 +3997,58 @@ free: return NULL; } +static int mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_prepare(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, + const struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb, + struct switchdev_trans *trans) +{ + /* We don't need any dynamic resource from the kernel (yet), + * so skip the prepare phase. + */ + + return 0; +} + +static void mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_add(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, + const struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb, + struct switchdev_trans *trans) +{ + struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds_to_priv(ds); + + mutex_lock(&chip->reg_lock); + if (mv88e6xxx_port_db_load_purge(chip, port, mdb->addr, mdb->vid, + GLOBAL_ATU_DATA_STATE_MC_STATIC)) + netdev_err(ds->ports[port].netdev, "failed to load multicast MAC address\n"); + mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock); +} + +static int mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, + const struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb) +{ + struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds_to_priv(ds); + int err; + + mutex_lock(&chip->reg_lock); + err = mv88e6xxx_port_db_load_purge(chip, port, mdb->addr, mdb->vid, + GLOBAL_ATU_DATA_STATE_UNUSED); + mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock); + + return err; +} + +static int mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_dump(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, + struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb, + int (*cb)(struct switchdev_obj *obj)) +{ + struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds_to_priv(ds); + int err; + + mutex_lock(&chip->reg_lock); + err = mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump(chip, port, &mdb->obj, cb); + mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock); + + return err; +} + static struct dsa_switch_ops mv88e6xxx_switch_ops = { .probe = mv88e6xxx_drv_probe, .get_tag_protocol = mv88e6xxx_get_tag_protocol, @@ -4023,6 +4084,10 @@ static struct dsa_switch_ops mv88e6xxx_switch_ops = { .port_fdb_add = mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_add, .port_fdb_del = mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_del, .port_fdb_dump = mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_dump, + .port_mdb_prepare = mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_prepare, + .port_mdb_add = mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_add, + .port_mdb_del = mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_del, + .port_mdb_dump = mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_dump, }; static int mv88e6xxx_register_switch(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip,
Add support for the MDB operations. This consists of loading/purging/dumping multicast addresses for a given port in the ATU. Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> --- drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)