Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: avoid error message on remove from VLAN 0

[Vivien Didelot]

Hi Florian,

On Fri, 31 May 2019 09:34:03 -0700, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/31/19 7:37 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> I'm not sure that I like the semantic of it, because the driver can actually
> >> support VID 0 per-se, only the kernel does not use VLAN 0. Thus I would avoid
> >> calling the port_vlan_del() ops for VID 0, directly into the upper DSA layer.
> >>
> >> Florian, Andrew, wouldn't the following patch be more adequate?
> >>
> >>     diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> >>     index 1e2ae9d59b88..80f228258a92 100644
> >>     --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> >>     +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> >>     @@ -1063,6 +1063,10 @@ static int dsa_slave_vlan_rx_kill_vid(struct net_device *dev, __be16 proto,
> >>             struct bridge_vlan_info info;
> >>             int ret;
> >>      
> >>     +       /* VID 0 has a special meaning and is never programmed in hardware */
> >>     +       if (!vid)
> >>     +               return 0;
> >>     +
> >>             /* Check for a possible bridge VLAN entry now since there is no
> >>              * need to emulate the switchdev prepare + commit phase.
> >>              */
> >  
> > Hi Vivien
> > 
> > If we put this in rx_kill_vid, we should probably have something
> > similar in rx_add_vid, just in case the kernel does start using VID 0.
> 
> We use the prepare/commit model in the rx_add_vid() path so we deal with
> -EOPNOTSUPP, that was caught fairly early on by Heiner when I added
> programming of VLAN filtering through rx_{add,kill}_vid.
> 
> Nikita's patcha s it stands is correct and would make both
> mv88e6xxx_port_check_hw_vlan() and mv88e6xxx_vtu_get() consistent.

OK, I'll double check if I can simplify the management of VID 0 in mv88e6xxx to
match what other switches do. In the meantime, Nikita's approach is consistent.

Thank you,
Vivien