On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 00:26, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:03:21AM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> Allocate a SID in the STU for each MSTID in use by a bridge and handle
>> the mapping of MSTIDs to VLANs using the SID field of each VTU entry.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h | 13 +++
>> 2 files changed, 191 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
>> index c14a62aa6a6c..4fb4ec1dff79 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
>> @@ -1818,6 +1818,137 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_stu_setup(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip)
>> return mv88e6xxx_stu_loadpurge(chip, &stu);
>> }
>>
>> +static int mv88e6xxx_sid_new(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, u8 *sid)
>> +{
>> + DECLARE_BITMAP(busy, MV88E6XXX_N_SID) = { 0 };
>> + struct mv88e6xxx_mst *mst;
>> +
>> + set_bit(0, busy);
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(mst, &chip->msts, node) {
>> + set_bit(mst->stu.sid, busy);
>> + }
>> +
>> + *sid = find_first_zero_bit(busy, MV88E6XXX_N_SID);
>> +
>> + return (*sid >= mv88e6xxx_max_sid(chip)) ? -ENOSPC : 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int mv88e6xxx_sid_put(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, u8 sid)
>> +{
>> + struct mv88e6xxx_mst *mst, *tmp;
>> + int err = 0;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(mst, tmp, &chip->msts, node) {
>> + if (mst->stu.sid == sid) {
>> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&mst->refcnt)) {
>> + mst->stu.valid = false;
>> + err = mv88e6xxx_stu_loadpurge(chip, &mst->stu);
>
> It is interesting what to do if this fails. Possibly not this, because
> the entry remains in hardware but not in software.
True, I will let the error bubble up and keep the SW state in sync with
the hardware.
>> + list_del(&mst->node);
>> + kfree(mst);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int mv88e6xxx_sid_get(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, struct net_device *br,
>> + u16 msti, u8 *sid)
>> +{
>> + struct mv88e6xxx_mst *mst;
>> + int err, i;
>> +
>> + if (!br)
>> + return 0;
>
> Is this condition possible?
Removing.
>> +
>> + if (!mv88e6xxx_has_stu(chip))
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(mst, &chip->msts, node) {
>> + if (mst->br == br && mst->msti == msti) {
>> + refcount_inc(&mst->refcnt);
>> + *sid = mst->stu.sid;
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + err = mv88e6xxx_sid_new(chip, sid);
>> + if (err)
>> + return err;
>> +
>> + mst = kzalloc(sizeof(*mst), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!mst)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> This leaks the new SID.
I don't think so, the SID is just calculated based on what is in
chip->msts. However:
- The naming is bad. Will change.
>> +
>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mst->node);
>> + refcount_set(&mst->refcnt, 1);
>> + mst->br = br;
>> + mst->msti = msti;
>> + mst->stu.valid = true;
>> + mst->stu.sid = *sid;
>> +
>> + /* The bridge starts out all ports in the disabled state. But
>> + * a STU state of disabled means to go by the port-global
>> + * state. So we set all user port's initial state to blocking,
>> + * to match the bridge's behavior.
>> + */
>> + for (i = 0; i < mv88e6xxx_num_ports(chip); i++)
>> + mst->stu.state[i] = dsa_is_user_port(chip->ds, i) ?
>> + MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_STATE_BLOCKING :
>> + MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_STATE_DISABLED;
>> +
>> + list_add_tail(&mst->node, &chip->msts);
>> + return mv88e6xxx_stu_loadpurge(chip, &mst->stu);
>
> And this doesn't behave too well on failure (the MSTID exists in
> software but not in hardware).
Yes, fixing in v3.
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int mv88e6xxx_port_mst_state_set(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>> + const struct switchdev_mst_state *st)
>> +{
>> + struct dsa_port *dp = dsa_to_port(ds, port);
>> + struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
>> + struct mv88e6xxx_mst *mst;
>> + u8 state;
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + if (!mv88e6xxx_has_stu(chip))
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> + switch (st->state) {
>> + case BR_STATE_DISABLED:
>> + case BR_STATE_BLOCKING:
>> + case BR_STATE_LISTENING:
>> + state = MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_STATE_BLOCKING;
>> + break;
>> + case BR_STATE_LEARNING:
>> + state = MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_STATE_LEARNING;
>> + break;
>> + case BR_STATE_FORWARDING:
>> + state = MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_STATE_FORWARDING;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(mst, &chip->msts, node) {
>> + if (mst->br == dsa_port_bridge_dev_get(dp) &&
>> + mst->msti == st->msti) {
>> + if (mst->stu.state[port] == state)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + mst->stu.state[port] = state;
>> + mv88e6xxx_reg_lock(chip);
>> + err = mv88e6xxx_stu_loadpurge(chip, &mst->stu);
>> + mv88e6xxx_reg_unlock(chip);
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int mv88e6xxx_port_check_hw_vlan(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>> u16 vid)
>> {
>> @@ -2437,6 +2568,12 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip,
>> if (err)
>> return err;
>>
>> + if (!vlan.valid && vlan.sid) {
>> + err = mv88e6xxx_sid_put(chip, vlan.sid);
>> + if (err)
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> +
>> return mv88e6xxx_g1_atu_remove(chip, vlan.fid, port, false);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -2482,6 +2619,44 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> +static int mv88e6xxx_vlan_msti_set(struct dsa_switch *ds,
>> + const struct switchdev_attr *attr)
>> +{
>> + const struct switchdev_vlan_attr *vattr = &attr->u.vlan_attr;
>> + struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
>> + struct mv88e6xxx_vtu_entry vlan;
>> + u8 new_sid;
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + mv88e6xxx_reg_lock(chip);
>> +
>> + err = mv88e6xxx_vtu_get(chip, vattr->vid, &vlan);
>> + if (err)
>> + goto unlock;
>> +
>> + if (!vlan.valid) {
>> + err = -EINVAL;
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>> +
>> + err = mv88e6xxx_sid_get(chip, attr->orig_dev, vattr->msti, &new_sid);
>> + if (err)
>> + goto unlock;
>> +
>> + if (vlan.sid) {
>> + err = mv88e6xxx_sid_put(chip, vlan.sid);
>> + if (err)
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>> +
>> + vlan.sid = new_sid;
>> + err = mv88e6xxx_vtu_loadpurge(chip, &vlan);
>
> Maybe you could move mv88e6xxx_sid_put() after this succeeds?
Yep. Also made sure to avoid needless updates of the VTU entry if it
already belonged to the correct SID.
Thanks for the great review!
