Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] net: dsa: integrate with SWITCHDEV for HW bridging
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Date: 2015-03-02 14:52:21
On 03/02/2015 06:38 AM, Andrey Volkov wrote:
On 28/02/2015 08:53, Guenter Roeck wrote:quoted
On 02/27/2015 09:09 AM, Andrey Volkov wrote:quoted
Gunter, Sorry with response delay, I very was busy yesterday Le 25/02/2015 15:25, Guenter Roeck a écrit :quoted
Andrey,------- snip -------quoted
quoted
quoted
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'tDoes 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.
quoted
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