Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Add fdb/mdb manipulation

[Egil Hjelmeland]

On 18. okt. 2017 16:38, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Egil,
>
> Egil Hjelmeland <privat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > +/* Delete static port from ALR entry, delete entry if last port */
> > +static int lan9303_alr_del_port(struct lan9303 *chip, const u8 *mac,
> > +				int port)
> > +{
> > +	struct lan9303_alr_cache_entry *entr;
> > +
> > +	entr = lan9303_alr_cache_find_mac(chip, mac);
> > +	if (!entr)
> > +		return 0;  /* no static entry found */
> > +		/* Question: Should we delete any learned entry?
> > +		 * { lan9303_alr_set_entry(chip, mac, 0, false); return 0; }
>
> .port_fdb_del is meant to remove the association between a port and a
> MAC address in a given forwarding database. Deleting any learned entry
> is therefore out of scope of this function.
>
> Please mark such patchset as RFC next time so that the maintainer knows
> that it is not meant to be applied.
Thanks. And I will keep the RFC remark in mind.

> > +		 */
> > +
> > +	entr->port_map &= ~BIT(port);
> > +	if (entr->port_map == 0) /* zero means its free again */
> > +		eth_zero_addr(&entr->port_map);
> > +	lan9303_alr_set_entry(chip, mac, entr->port_map, entr->stp_override);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
>
> ...
>
> > +static int lan9303_port_fdb_add(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > +				const unsigned char *addr, u16 vid)
> > +{
> > +	struct lan9303 *chip = ds->priv;
> > +
> > +	dev_dbg(chip->dev, "%s(%d, %pM, %d)\n", __func__, port, addr, vid);
> > +	if (vid)
> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +	return lan9303_alr_add_port(chip, addr, port, false);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int lan9303_port_fdb_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > +				const unsigned char *addr, u16 vid)
> > +
> > +{
> > +	struct lan9303 *chip = ds->priv;
> > +
> > +	dev_dbg(chip->dev, "%s(%d, %pM, %d)\n", __func__, port, addr, vid);
> > +	if (vid)
> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +	lan9303_alr_del_port(chip, addr, port);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
>
> I don't remember, this chip has a single forwarding database for the
> whole switch, is that correct?
Correct.

And the forwarding database (ALR) does not handle VLAN.
VLAN filtering is a separate step, with its own table.

> Thanks,
>
>          Vivien