From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] net: dsa: integrate with SWITCHDEV for HW bridging Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 06:49:26 -0800 Message-ID: <54F47876.2000104@roeck-us.net> References: <54EA8E7C.90401@roeck-us.net> <20150223031447.GA19267@lunn.ch> <54EAA767.6060105@roeck-us.net> <20150223042220.GA20063@lunn.ch> <54EAAEBC.6080609@roeck-us.net> <20150223133454.GB23581@lunn.ch> <54EB37C7.3090209@roeck-us.net> <20150223160109.GB27057@lunn.ch> <54EB6BF5.2020600@gmail.com> <20150223183537.GA23456@roeck-us.net> <54EDD172.4010606@nexvision.fr> <54EDDB72.1090706@roeck-us.net> <54F0A4DE.3020704@nexvision.fr> <54F17408.4080105@roeck-us.net> <54F475E8.8010408@nexvision.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Andrew Lunn , netdev , David Miller , Vivien Didelot , jerome.oufella@savoirfairelinux.com, Chris Healy To: Andrey Volkov , Florian Fainelli Return-path: Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:41904 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754549AbbCBOwV (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:52:21 -0500 Received: from mailnull by bh-25.webhostbox.net with sa-checked (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YSRhk-0023cm-CN for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:52:20 +0000 In-Reply-To: <54F475E8.8010408@nexvision.fr> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 =E9crit : >>>> Andrey, >>> >>> ------- snip ------- >>> >>>>>> >>>>> I simply modify port's fid to the new one in the leave routine an= d 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 throug= h yours patches and I haven't >>>> >>>> Does removing a port from a fid clean up the entries associated wi= th 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 anoth= er 5c: changing of group membership is >>> not atomic operation in the Marvell's chips known for me, so the po= rt 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 th= e 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 a= n existing one ? >> I found that it is quite similar to 6131, and that adding support fo= r 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 numbe= r 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 6= 131 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