Re: [PATCH net-next v2 07/10] net: dsa: lan9303: Added basic offloading of unicast traffic

[Andrew Lunn]

Hi Egil

> +/* forward special tagged packets from port 0 to port 1 *or* port 2 */
> +static int lan9303_setup_tagging(struct lan9303 *chip)
> +{
> +	int ret;

Blank line please.


> +	/* enable defining the destination port via special VLAN tagging
> +	 * for port 0
> +	 */
> +	ret = lan9303_write_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_SWE_INGRESS_PORT_TYPE,
> +				       0x03);

#define for 0x03.

> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	/* tag incoming packets at port 1 and 2 on their way to port 0 to be
> +	 * able to discover their source port
> +	 */
> +	return lan9303_write_switch_reg(
> +		chip, LAN9303_BM_EGRSS_PORT_TYPE,
> +		LAN9303_BM_EGRSS_PORT_TYPE_SPECIAL_TAG_PORT0);
> +}
> +
>  /* We want a special working switch:
>   * - do not forward packets between port 1 and 2
>   * - forward everything from port 1 to port 0
>   * - forward everything from port 2 to port 0
> - * - forward special tagged packets from port 0 to port 1 *or* port 2
>   */
>  static int lan9303_separate_ports(struct lan9303 *chip)
>  {
> @@ -534,22 +555,6 @@ static int lan9303_separate_ports(struct lan9303 *chip)
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	/* enable defining the destination port via special VLAN tagging
> -	 * for port 0
> -	 */
> -	ret = lan9303_write_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_SWE_INGRESS_PORT_TYPE,
> -				       0x03);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -
> -	/* tag incoming packets at port 1 and 2 on their way to port 0 to be
> -	 * able to discover their source port
> -	 */
> -	ret = lan9303_write_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_BM_EGRSS_PORT_TYPE,
> -			LAN9303_BM_EGRSS_PORT_TYPE_SPECIAL_TAG_PORT0);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -
>  	/* prevent port 1 and 2 from forwarding packets by their own */
>  	return lan9303_write_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_SWE_PORT_STATE,
>  				LAN9303_SWE_PORT_STATE_FORWARDING_PORT0 |
> @@ -557,6 +562,12 @@ static int lan9303_separate_ports(struct lan9303 *chip)
>  				LAN9303_SWE_PORT_STATE_BLOCKING_PORT2);
>  }
>  
> +static void lan9303_bridge_ports(struct lan9303 *chip)
> +{
> +	/* ports bridged: remove mirroring */
> +	lan9303_write_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_SWE_PORT_MIRROR, 0);
> +}
> +
>  static int lan9303_handle_reset(struct lan9303 *chip)
>  {
>  	if (!chip->reset_gpio)
> @@ -707,6 +718,10 @@ static int lan9303_setup(struct dsa_switch *ds)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	ret = lan9303_setup_tagging(chip);
> +	if (ret)
> +		dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to setup port tagging %d\n", ret);
> +
>  	ret = lan9303_separate_ports(chip);
>  	if (ret)
>  		dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to separate ports %d\n", ret);
> @@ -898,17 +913,81 @@ static void lan9303_port_disable(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static int lan9303_port_bridge_join(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> +				    struct net_device *br)
> +{
> +	struct lan9303 *chip = ds->priv;
> +
> +	dev_dbg(chip->dev, "%s(port %d)\n", __func__, port);
> +	if (ds->ports[1].bridge_dev ==  ds->ports[2].bridge_dev) {
> +		lan9303_bridge_ports(chip);
> +		chip->is_bridged = true;  /* unleash stp_state_set() */
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void lan9303_port_bridge_leave(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> +				      struct net_device *br)
> +{
> +	struct lan9303 *chip = ds->priv;
> +
> +	dev_dbg(chip->dev, "%s(port %d)\n", __func__, port);
> +	if (chip->is_bridged) {
> +		lan9303_separate_ports(chip);
> +		chip->is_bridged = false;
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void lan9303_port_stp_state_set(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> +				       u8 state)
> +{
> +	int portmask, portstate;
> +	struct lan9303 *chip = ds->priv;
> +
> +	dev_dbg(chip->dev, "%s(port %d, state %d)\n",
> +		__func__, port, state);
> +	if (!chip->is_bridged)
> +		return;

I think you are over-simplifying here. Say i have a layer 2 VPN and i
bridge port 1 and the VPN? The software bridge still wants to do STP
on port 1, in order to solve loops.

> +
> +	switch (state) {
> +	case BR_STATE_DISABLED:
> +		portstate = LAN9303_SWE_PORT_STATE_DISABLED_PORT0;
> +		break;
> +	case BR_STATE_BLOCKING:
> +	case BR_STATE_LISTENING:
> +		portstate = LAN9303_SWE_PORT_STATE_BLOCKING_PORT0;
> +		break;
> +	case BR_STATE_LEARNING:
> +		portstate = LAN9303_SWE_PORT_STATE_LEARNING_PORT0;
> +		break;
> +	case BR_STATE_FORWARDING:
> +		portstate = LAN9303_SWE_PORT_STATE_FORWARDING_PORT0;
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		dev_err(chip->dev, "%s(port %d, state %d)\n",
> +			__func__, port, state);
> +	}
> +	portmask = 0x3 << (port * 2);
> +	portstate     <<= (port * 2);
> +	lan9303_write_switch_reg_mask(chip, LAN9303_SWE_PORT_STATE,
> +				      portstate, portmask);
> +}




> +
>  static struct dsa_switch_ops lan9303_switch_ops = {
>  	.get_tag_protocol = lan9303_get_tag_protocol,
>  	.setup = lan9303_setup,
> -	.get_strings = lan9303_get_strings,

????

>  	.phy_read = lan9303_phy_read,
>  	.phy_write = lan9303_phy_write,
>  	.adjust_link = lan9303_adjust_link,
> +	.get_strings = lan9303_get_strings,

Please don't include other unrelated changes.

       Andrew