Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: implementation of dynamic ATU entries

[netdev]

On 2023-01-31 19:56, Simon Horman wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> >  #include "ptp.h"
> >  #include "serdes.h"
> >  #include "smi.h"
> > +#include "switchdev.h"
> >
> >  static void assert_reg_lock(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip)
> >  {
> > @@ -2726,18 +2727,25 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_add(struct 
> > dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> >  				  const unsigned char *addr, u16 vid,
> >  				  u16 fdb_flags, struct dsa_db db)
> >  {
> > +	bool is_dynamic = !!(fdb_flags & DSA_FDB_FLAG_DYNAMIC);
> >  	struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
> > +	u8 state;
> >  	int err;
> >
> > -	/* Ignore entries with flags set */
> > -	if (fdb_flags)
> > -		return 0;
> > +	state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_STATIC;
> > +	if (is_dynamic)
> > +		state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_AGE_7_NEWEST;
>
> What if flags other than DSA_FDB_FLAG_DYNAMIC are set (in future)?

They will have to be caught and handled here if there is support for it, 
e.g. something like...

else if (someflag)
        dosomething();

For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually 
exclusive, as they will not make sense together with the potential flags 
I know, but that can change at some time of course.

> > +	else
> > +		if (fdb_flags)
>
> nit: else if (fdb_flags)
>
> > +			return 0;
>
> ...