> If I may make a suggestion: I also work with mv88e6xxx systems, and we > have the same issues with known multicast not being flooded to router > ports. Knowing that chipset, I see what you are trying to do. > > But other chips may work differently. Imagine for example a switch where > there is a separate vector of router ports that the hardware can OR in after > looking up the group in the ATU. This implementation would render the > performance gains possible on that device useless. As another example, you > could imagine a device where an ATU operation exists that sets a bit in the > vector of every group in a particular database; instead of having to update > each entry individually. > > I think we (mv88e6xxx) will have to accept that we need to add the proper > scaffolding to manage this on the driver side. That way the bridge can stay > generic. The bridge could just provide some MDB iterator to save us from > having to cache all the configured groups. > > So basically: > > - In mv88e6xxx, maintain a per-switch vector of router ports. > > - When a ports router state is toggled: > 1. Update the vector. > 2. Ask the bridge to iterate through all applicable groups and update > the corresponding ATU entries. > > - When a new MDB entry is updated, make sure to also OR in the current > vector of router ports in the DPV of the ATU entry. > > > I would be happy to help out with testing of this! Thanks for the suggestion/offer! What patch 0002 does is that: - When an mrouter port is added/deleted, it iterates over the list of mdb's to add/delete that port to/from the group in the hardware (I think this is what your bullet #2 does as well, except that one is done in the bridge, and the other is done in the driver) - When a group is added/deleted, it iterates over the list of mrouter ports to add/delete the switchdev programming I think what Nik is objecting to is that with this approach, there's now a for-loop in the call paths (thus it "increases the complexity with 1 order of magnitude), however I can't think of a way to avoid the looping (whether done inside the bridge or in the driver) but still achieve the same result (for Marvell at least). I suspect that other SOHO switches might have this problem as well (Broadcom comes to mind). Thanks, Joseph
