On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 03:31:57PM +0200, Martin Schiller wrote:
> On 2024-06-07 13:26, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:52:30AM +0200, Martin Schiller wrote:
> > > From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Calling gswip_add_single_port_br() with the CPU port would be a bug
> > > because then only the CPU port could talk to itself. Add the CPU
> > > port to
> > > the validation at the beginning of gswip_add_single_port_br().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl
> > > <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
> > > b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
> > > index ee8296d5b901..d2195271ffe9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
> > > @@ -657,7 +657,7 @@ static int gswip_add_single_port_br(struct
> > > gswip_priv *priv, int port, bool add)
> > > unsigned int max_ports = priv->hw_info->max_ports;
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > - if (port >= max_ports) {
> > > + if (port >= max_ports || dsa_is_cpu_port(priv->ds, port)) {
> > > dev_err(priv->dev, "single port for %i supported\n", port);
> > > return -EIO;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.39.2
> > >
> >
> > Isn't the new check effectively dead code?
>
> As long as the dsa_switch_ops .port_bridge_join and .port_bridge_leave are not
> executed for the cpu port, I agree with you.
They aren't. The primary trigger for dsa_port_bridge_join() is dsa_user_changeupper(),
along with other code paths that replay the operation in certain circumstances,
again only for user ports.
