On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Martin Schiller wrote:
> From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Print the port which is not found to be part of a bridge so it's easier
> to investigate the underlying issue.
Was there an actual issue which was investigated here? More details?
> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
> index 4bb894e75b81..69035598e8a4 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
> @@ -1377,7 +1377,8 @@ static int gswip_port_fdb(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> }
>
> if (fid == -1) {
> - dev_err(priv->dev, "Port not part of a bridge\n");
> + dev_err(priv->dev,
> + "Port %d is not known to be part of bridge\n", port);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
Actually I would argue this is entirely confusing. There is an earlier
check:
if (!bridge)
return -EINVAL;
which did _not_ trigger if we're executing this. So the port _is_ a part
of a bridge. Just say that no FID is found for bridge %s (bridge->name),
which technically _is_ what happened.
