On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 06:00:00PM +0100, netdev@kapio-technology.com wrote:

On 2023-01-31 19:56, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

quoted

--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c

@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
 #include "ptp.h"
 #include "serdes.h"
 #include "smi.h"
+#include "switchdev.h"

 static void assert_reg_lock(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip)
 {

@@ -2726,18 +2727,25 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_add(struct

dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 				  const unsigned char *addr, u16 vid,
 				  u16 fdb_flags, struct dsa_db db)
 {
+	bool is_dynamic = !!(fdb_flags & DSA_FDB_FLAG_DYNAMIC);
 	struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
+	u8 state;
 	int err;

-	/* Ignore entries with flags set */
-	if (fdb_flags)
-		return 0;
+	state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_STATIC;
+	if (is_dynamic)
+		state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_AGE_7_NEWEST;

What if flags other than DSA_FDB_FLAG_DYNAMIC are set (in future)?

They will have to be caught and handled here if there is support for it,
e.g. something like...

else if (someflag)
        dosomething();

For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually exclusive,
as they will not make sense together with the potential flags I know, but
that can change at some time of course.

Yes, I see that is workable. I do feel that checking for other flags would
be a bit more robust. But as you say, there are none. So whichever
approach you prefer is fine by me.

quoted

quoted

+	else
+		if (fdb_flags)

nit: else if (fdb_flags)

quoted

+			return 0;

...