On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 00:36, Vivien Didelot [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 00:02:22 +0300, Vladimir Oltean [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 23:58, Vivien Didelot [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 23:40:34 +0300, Vladimir Oltean [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I don't need this patch. I'm not sure what my thought process was at
the time I added it to the patchset.
I'm still interested in getting rid of the vlan bitmap through other
means (picking up your old changeset). Could you take a look at my
questions in that thread? I'm not sure I understand what the user
interaction is supposed to look like for configuring CPU/DSA ports.

What do you mean by getting rid of the vlan bitmap? What do you need exactly?

It would be nice to configure the VLAN attributes of the CPU port in
another way than the implicit way it is done currently. I don't have a
specific use case right now.

So you mean you need a lower level API to configure VLANs on a per-port basis,
without any logic, like including CPU and DSA links, etc.

The bitmap operations were introduced to simplify the switch drivers in the
future, since most of them could implement the VLAN operations (add, del)
in simple functions taking all local members at once.

But the Linux interface being exclusively based on a per port (slave) logic,
it is hard to implement right now.

The thing is that CPU ports, as well as DSA links in a multi-chip setup,
need to be programmed transparently when a given user port is configured,
hence the notification sent by a port to all switches of the fabric.

So I'm not against removing the bitmap logic, actually I'm looking into it
as well as moving more bridge checking logic into the slave code itself,
because I'm not a fan of your "Allow proper internal use of VLANs" patch.

But you'll need to provide more than "it would be nice" to push in that
direction, instead of making changes everywhere to make your switch work.


Thanks,

        Vivien

I mean I made an argument already for the hack in 4/6 ("Don't program
the VLAN as pvid on the upstream port"). If the hack gets accepted
like that, I have no further need of any change in the implicit VLAN
configuration. But it's still a hack, so in that sense it would be
nicer to not need it and have a better amount of control.