Hi Jakub, On 10/11/2022 22:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:39:47 +0200 Roger Quadros wrote: >>> Maybe my tree is old but I see we clear only if there is a netdev that >> >> This patch depends on this series >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20221104132310.31577-3-rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx/T/ > > I do have those in my tree. > >>> needs to be opened but then always call ale_restore(). Is that okay? >> >> If netdev is closed and opened ale_restore() is not called. >> ale_restore() is only called during system suspend/resume path >> since CPSW-ALE might have lost context during suspend and we want to restore >> all valid ALE entries. > > Ack, what I'm referring to is the contents of am65_cpsw_nuss_resume(). > > I'm guessing that ALE_CLEAR is expected to be triggered by > cpsw_ale_start(). > > Assuming above is true and that ALE_CLEAR comes from cpsw_ale_start(), > the call stack is: > > cpsw_ale_start() > am65_cpsw_nuss_common_open() > am65_cpsw_nuss_ndo_slave_open() > am65_cpsw_nuss_resume() > > but resume() only calls ndo_slave_open under certain conditions: > > for (i = 0; i < common->port_num; i++) { > if (netif_running(ndev)) { > rtnl_lock(); > ret = am65_cpsw_nuss_ndo_slave_open(ndev); > > Is there another path? Or perhaps there's nothing to restore > if all netdevs are down? I see your point now. We are missing a ALE_CLEAR if all interfaces were down during suspend/resume. In this case the call to cpsw_ale_restore() is pointless as ALE will be cleared again when one of the interfaces is brought up. I'll revise the patch to call cpsw_ale_restore only if any interface was running. > >> I have a question here. How should ageable entries be treated in this case? > > Ah, no idea :) Let's me add experts to To: Thanks. cheers, -roger
