On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:42, Vladimir Oltean [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:13:56PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
quoted
@@ -2184,25 +2230,7 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
if (err)
return err;
- /* Dump VLANs' Filtering Information Databases */
- vlan.vid = mv88e6xxx_max_vid(chip);
- vlan.valid = false;
-
- do {
- err = mv88e6xxx_vtu_getnext(chip, &vlan);
- if (err)
- return err;
-
- if (!vlan.valid)
- break;
-
- err = mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_fid(chip, vlan.fid, vlan.vid, port,
- cb, data);
- if (err)
- return err;
- } while (vlan.vid < mv88e6xxx_max_vid(chip));
-
- return err;
+ return mv88e6xxx_vtu_walk(chip, mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_vlan, &ctx);
}
Can the mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_fid(VLAN 0) located above this call be
covered by the same mv88e6xxx_vtu_walk?
The port's default default FID does not belong to any VLAN, so it is
never loaded in the VTU. That is why it handled separately. So, no :)