From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=MQZZTj8nabcqXlOJo 8XpXYmPncZlkb2pDfrS1E/GCWs=; b=KPnK0JrrURZg2WB91bNRyRRM9j3C9wClc a9v83tOZN9Uut3wzny0nLKGJ/f70x9a6yywbUUGMcW4inDsa3EjQKwxNIayD6eBZ BQba8pBxL95XH2OWwCKBkidPeEatOhwZ1CKtNnrhKbttlBEkf/d9MRkXHubAZMzP NW3IW3VFXwVxYJnSZBQQzeaQe8EJnDwWVhUjjHwGt6n1BE/nQAKIfLhoYa4qgqP+ ngyEPPZ1PeX8qdcWEQzgGvhNC4Tjz6+FvVlzWDO3fzDuGNSFSbW3SgAW7CuyX1Z/ iWq0qjIqgwNev9+byaMnUftAdHnJANOhwvhtfmOeHZg9j2MBqlAQA== Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:21:43 +0200 From: Ido Schimmel Message-ID: References: <20220218155148.2329797-1-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com> <20220218155148.2329797-5-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com> <20220219100034.lh343dkmc4fbiad3@skbuf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220219100034.lh343dkmc4fbiad3@skbuf> 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: 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, Ido Schimmel , Vivien Didelot , David Ahern , Hans Schultz , Po-Hsu Lin , Nikolay Aleksandrov , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Roopa Prabhu , kuba@kernel.org, Stephen Suryaputra , Shuah Khan , davem@davemloft.net 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/mv88e6xxx/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; > > } > > > > +int mv88e6xxx_port_set_lock(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, > > + bool locked) > > +{ > > + u16 reg; > > + int err; > > + > > + err = mv88e6xxx_port_read(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0, ®); > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + > > + reg &= ~MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_SA_FILT_MASK; > > + if (locked) > > + reg |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_SA_FILT_DROP_ON_LOCK; > > + > > + err = mv88e6xxx_port_write(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0, reg); > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + > > + err = mv88e6xxx_port_read(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR, ®); > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + > > + reg &= ~MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR_LOCKED_PORT; > > + if (locked) > > + reg |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR_LOCKED_PORT; > > + > > + err = mv88e6xxx_port_write(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR, reg); > > return mv88e6xxx_port_write(...); Not familiar with mv88e6xxx, but shouldn't there be a rollback of previous operations? Specifically mv88e6xxx_port_write() > > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + > > + return 0; > > +}