On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 06:00:00PM +0100, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 2023-01-31 19:56, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> > > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> > > #include "ptp.h"
> > > #include "serdes.h"
> > > #include "smi.h"
> > > +#include "switchdev.h"
> > >
> > > static void assert_reg_lock(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip)
> > > {
> > > @@ -2726,18 +2727,25 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_add(struct
> > > dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > const unsigned char *addr, u16 vid,
> > > u16 fdb_flags, struct dsa_db db)
> > > {
> > > + bool is_dynamic = !!(fdb_flags & DSA_FDB_FLAG_DYNAMIC);
> > > struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
> > > + u8 state;
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > - /* Ignore entries with flags set */
> > > - if (fdb_flags)
> > > - return 0;
> > > + state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_STATIC;
> > > + if (is_dynamic)
> > > + state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_AGE_7_NEWEST;
> >
> > What if flags other than DSA_FDB_FLAG_DYNAMIC are set (in future)?
>
> They will have to be caught and handled here if there is support for it,
> e.g. something like...
>
> else if (someflag)
> dosomething();
>
> For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually exclusive,
> as they will not make sense together with the potential flags I know, but
> that can change at some time of course.
Yes, I see that is workable. I do feel that checking for other flags would
be a bit more robust. But as you say, there are none. So whichever
approach you prefer is fine by me.
> >
> > > + else
> > > + if (fdb_flags)
> >
> > nit: else if (fdb_flags)
> >
> > > + return 0;
> > >
> >
> > ...
