lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v2 07/10] net: dsa: lan9303: Added basic offloading of unicast traffic
From
Date
On 26. juli 2017 19:24, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 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.
>

Problem is that the mainline lan9303_separate_ports() does its
work by setting port 1 & 2 in STP BLOCKING state (and port 0 in
FORWARDING state). So my understanding is that it would break port
separation if LAN9303_SWE_PORT_STATE is written while the driver
is in the non-bridged state.

I thought the SW bridge would carry doing its STP work even if
there is a port_stp_state_set method on a DSA port?

>> +
>> + 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
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-27 13:22    [W:0.099 / U:11.968 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site