Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] net: dsa: integrate with SWITCHDEV for HW bridging

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 03/02/2015 06:38 AM, Andrey Volkov wrote:
>
> On 28/02/2015 08:53, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 02/27/2015 09:09 AM, Andrey Volkov wrote:
>>> Gunter,
>>>
>>> Sorry with response delay, I very was busy yesterday
>>>
>>> Le 25/02/2015 15:25, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
>>>> Andrey,
>>>
>>> ------- snip -------
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I simply modify port's fid to the new one in the leave routine and set to common bridge FID in enter
>>>>> (I'm using Marvell's chips). So the port's database will cleaned up automatically for the leave and will
>>>>> contain something useful at the enter time. Also I've look through yours patches and I haven't
>>>>
>>>> Does removing a port from a fid clean up the entries associated with it
>>>> in the database ?
>>>
>>> I've checked what happened when port changed its FID: switch logic block traffic to it
>>> immediately, as far as I can see, meanwhile record still exists in the bridge database,
>>> it was checked on 88e6185, 88e6097 and 88e6352 chips. And yet another 5c: changing of group membership is
>>> not atomic operation in the Marvell's chips known for me, so the port must be in the disabled state when it
>>> will happened.
>>>
>> Hmm - interesting. I assume you mean updating port registers 5 and 6 ?
> Yes sure, it's reason why we must disable the port before changing the FID.
>
Yes, I think we'll need to do that once we use the bits in register 5.

>>
>> Different question: For 6185, did you write a new driver or extend an existing one ?
>> I found that it is quite similar to 6131, and that adding support for it to the 6131
>> driver should be straightforward.
> Yes again :), and 88E6097 have same core as 6123_61_65. Difference in both cases only in the number
> of supported ports, and it was main reason why hardcoded port's number was unacceptable for me, difference is
> large enough: for ex. 88e6123 have only 3 ports, but 88E6097 - 11.
>

I have a patch set to change the number of ports to a variable in the 6131 driver.
Want me to submit it now ? Though I guess you must have pretty much the same,
so we can also use your approach. Let me know.

Thanks,
Guenter