From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bk6iCziDs7KEQNE/9x22f3LO3qPYLR33HEQGFJDm3+k=; b=aq0QkXeh4owaIu+yypuEQ1a2yBDhwHw/SbxYGwXQJugzlJBo5NGN1vgaSKE1s8blTC nWlDO0+/q1CV1osEyC1ffUM28jtOwbQo4awy97wV1Vcg9B3+Z8FQxY6d78m2ViRfd0gm E8I3MGRy8Kk6+E7kBzN77teBDGcujJaspYOFJhzzMhBWVhdQIXCMu/af+jiYgaOexucX Lw0bstn4EUJRy2pUBz1IprvGW42vTqu1n1xdBYTSOY3twHqMnQvAME0a6FQDOKMJ9ZLi I2OySGBHpmlmw1hvIYla97mGlfYFL7tDQScnZw/w8+tUqo+8csOR7UozJ4hP/hAarYre qi1A== From: Hans Schultz In-Reply-To: References: <20220218155148.2329797-1-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com> <20220218155148.2329797-5-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com> <20220219100034.lh343dkmc4fbiad3@skbuf> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 15:05:58 +0100 Message-ID: <86h78sqpq1.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v3 4/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add support for bridge port locked mode List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Ido Schimmel , Vladimir Oltean Cc: Petr Machata , Andrew Lunn , Baowen Zheng , Florian Fainelli , Amit Cohen , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Hans Schultz , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vivien Didelot , David Ahern , Ido Schimmel , Po-Hsu Lin , Nikolay Aleksandrov , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Roopa Prabhu , kuba@kernel.org, Stephen Suryaputra , Shuah Khan , davem@davemloft.net On s=C3=B6n, feb 20, 2022 at 11:21, Ido Schimmel wrote: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 12:00:34PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 04:51:47PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote: >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6= xxx/port.c >> > index ab41619a809b..46b7381899a0 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c >> > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c >> > @@ -1234,6 +1234,39 @@ int mv88e6xxx_port_set_mirror(struct mv88e6xxx_= chip *chip, int port, >> > return err; >> > } >> >=20=20 >> > +int mv88e6xxx_port_set_lock(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, >> > + bool locked) >> > +{ >> > + u16 reg; >> > + int err; >> > + >> > + err =3D mv88e6xxx_port_read(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0, ®); >> > + if (err) >> > + return err; >> > + >> > + reg &=3D ~MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_SA_FILT_MASK; >> > + if (locked) >> > + reg |=3D MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_SA_FILT_DROP_ON_LOCK; >> > + >> > + err =3D mv88e6xxx_port_write(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0, reg); >> > + if (err) >> > + return err; >> > + >> > + err =3D mv88e6xxx_port_read(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR,= ®); >> > + if (err) >> > + return err; >> > + >> > + reg &=3D ~MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR_LOCKED_PORT; >> > + if (locked) >> > + reg |=3D MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR_LOCKED_PORT; >> > + >> > + err =3D mv88e6xxx_port_write(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR= , reg); >>=20 >> return mv88e6xxx_port_write(...); > > Not familiar with mv88e6xxx, but shouldn't there be a rollback of > previous operations? Specifically mv88e6xxx_port_write() > If a register write function fails, I don't think that it would make sense to try and resolve the situation by additional register write calls (rollback). >>=20 >> > + if (err) >> > + return err; >> > + >> > + return 0; >> > +}