Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: dsa: don't unmask port bitmaps
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-10-24 00:54:23
Also in:
lkml
On 10/23/2017 02:26 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
Hi Andrew, Andrew Lunn [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:17:29PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:quoted
DSA has several bitmaps to store the type of ports: cpu_port_mask, dsa_port_mask and enabled_port_mask. But the code is inconsistently unmasking them. The legacy code tries to unmask cpu_port_mask and dsa_port_mask but skips enabled_port_mask. The new bindings unmasks cpu_port_mask and enabled_port_mask but skips dsa_port_mask. In fact there is no need to unmask them because we are in the error path, and they won't be used after. Instead of fixing the unmasking, simply remove them.I'm not looked at the code, travelling and don't have time.heu, ok.quoted
What happens if the failure is -PROBE_DEFERRED, and it tried again later. Will these masks be set back to 0? Or will they retain the old values? I think there is supposed to be symmetry here, so that we undo what we did, and so the next time we try again, we start from a good state.
In case of probe deferral, you get the full probe function to exit with an error, and that usually involves freeing the recently allocated dsa_switch instance, and then allocating a new one when probe is re-entered, so that should not be a problem.
The type of a port is a static information parsed either from device tree or from platform data. Thus there is no symmetry needed here. The fact that the unmasking of these bitmaps is currently erroneous also shows that it is unnecessary.
As much as I would like to see this being symmetrical here, as Vivien points out, this does not appear to be the case because of missing code, and it does not seem to solve a particular problem in being symmetrical. -- Florian