Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] net: dsa: xrs700x: add HSR offloading support

George McCollister
2021-02-08T14:48:50Z

On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 5:53 PM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 03:59:26PM -0600, George McCollister wrote:
> > +static int xrs700x_hsr_join(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > + struct net_device *hsr)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int val = XRS_HSR_CFG_HSR_PRP;
> > + struct dsa_port *partner = NULL, *dp;
> > + struct xrs700x *priv = ds->priv;
> > + struct net_device *slave;
> > + enum hsr_version ver;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = hsr_get_version(hsr, &ver);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (ver == HSR_V1)
> > + val |= XRS_HSR_CFG_HSR;
> > + else if (ver == PRP_V1)
> > + val |= XRS_HSR_CFG_PRP;
> > + else
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + dsa_hsr_foreach_port(dp, ds, hsr) {
> > + partner = dp;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* We can't enable redundancy on the switch until both
> > + * redundant ports have signed up.
> > + */
> > + if (!partner)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + regmap_fields_write(priv->ps_forward, partner->index,
> > + XRS_PORT_DISABLED);
> > + regmap_fields_write(priv->ps_forward, port, XRS_PORT_DISABLED);
> > +
> > + regmap_write(priv->regmap, XRS_HSR_CFG(partner->index),
> > + val | XRS_HSR_CFG_LANID_A);
> > + regmap_write(priv->regmap, XRS_HSR_CFG(port),
> > + val | XRS_HSR_CFG_LANID_B);
> > +
> > + /* Clear bits for both redundant ports (HSR only) and the CPU port to
> > + * enable forwarding.
> > + */
> > + val = GENMASK(ds->num_ports - 1, 0);
> > + if (ver == HSR_V1) {
> > + val &= ~BIT(partner->index);
> > + val &= ~BIT(port);
> > + }
> > + val &= ~BIT(dsa_upstream_port(ds, port));
> > + regmap_write(priv->regmap, XRS_PORT_FWD_MASK(partner->index), val);
> > + regmap_write(priv->regmap, XRS_PORT_FWD_MASK(port), val);
> > +
> > + regmap_fields_write(priv->ps_forward, partner->index,
> > + XRS_PORT_FORWARDING);
> > + regmap_fields_write(priv->ps_forward, port, XRS_PORT_FORWARDING);
> > +
> > + slave = dsa_to_port(ds, port)->slave;
> > +
> > + slave->features |= NETIF_F_HW_HSR_TAG_INS | NETIF_F_HW_HSR_TAG_RM |
> > + NETIF_F_HW_HSR_FWD | NETIF_F_HW_HSR_DUP;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Is it deliberate that only one slave HSR/PRP port will have the offload
> ethtool features set? If yes, then I find that a bit odd from a user
> point of view.

No. Good catch. This is a mistake I introduced when I added the code
for finding the partner. Originally for testing I had hacks that hard
coded the ports used and reconfigured HSR for each join.