On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 12:53:29PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
> Le Wed, 15 Mar 2023 01:08:21 +0200,
> Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 05:36:50PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
> > > +static int a5psw_port_pre_bridge_flags(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > + struct switchdev_brport_flags flags,
> > > + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> > > +{
> > > + if (flags.mask & ~(BR_LEARNING | BR_FLOOD | BR_MCAST_FLOOD |
> > > + BR_BCAST_FLOOD))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int
> > > +a5psw_port_bridge_flags(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > + struct switchdev_brport_flags flags,
> > > + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> > > +{
> > > + struct a5psw *a5psw = ds->priv;
> > > + u32 val;
> > > +
> > > + if (flags.mask & BR_LEARNING) {
> > > + val = flags.val & BR_LEARNING ? 0 : A5PSW_INPUT_LEARN_DIS(port);
> > > + a5psw_reg_rmw(a5psw, A5PSW_INPUT_LEARN,
> > > + A5PSW_INPUT_LEARN_DIS(port), val);
> > > + }
> >
> > 2 issues.
> >
> > 1: does this not get overwritten by a5psw_port_stp_state_set()?
>
> Hum indeed. How is this kind of thing supposed to be handled ? Should I
> remove the handling of BR_LEARNING to forbid modifying it ? Ot should I
> allow it only if STP isn't enabled (which I'm not sure how to do it) ?
It's handled correctly by only enabling learning in port_stp_state_set()
if dp->learning allows it. See sja1105_bridge_stp_state_set():
case BR_STATE_LEARNING:
mac[port].dyn_learn = dp->learning;
break;
case BR_STATE_FORWARDING:
mac[port].dyn_learn = dp->learning;
ocelot_bridge_stp_state_set():
if ((state == BR_STATE_LEARNING || state == BR_STATE_FORWARDING) &&
ocelot_port->learn_ena)
learn_ena = ANA_PORT_PORT_CFG_LEARN_ENA;
ksz_port_stp_state_set():
case BR_STATE_LEARNING:
if (!p->learning)
data |= PORT_LEARN_DISABLE;
break;
case BR_STATE_FORWARDING:
if (!p->learning)
data |= PORT_LEARN_DISABLE;
> > enables flooding on the port after calling a5psw_port_bridge_leave().
> > So the port which has left a bridge is standalone, but it still forwards
> > packets to the other bridged ports!
>
> Actually not this way because the port is configured in a specific mode
> which only forward packet to the CPU ports. Indeed, we set a specific
> rule using the PATTERN_CTRL register with the MGMTFWD bit set:
> When set, the frame is forwarded to the management port only
> (suppressing destination address lookup).
Ah, cool, this answers one of my issues in the other thread.
> However, the port will received packets *from* the other ports (which is
> wrong... I can handle that by not setting the flooding attributes if
> the port is not in bridge. Doing so would definitely fix the various
> problems that could happen.
hmm.. I guess that could work?
