Hi Nikita, On Fri, 31 May 2019 17:46:29 +0300, Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yo...@cogentembedded.com> wrote: > > > 31.05.2019 17:37, Andrew Lunn wrote: > >> I'm not sure that I like the semantic of it, because the driver can > >> actually > >> support VID 0 per-se, only the kernel does not use VLAN 0. Thus I would > >> avoid > >> calling the port_vlan_del() ops for VID 0, directly into the upper DSA > >> layer. > >> > >> Florian, Andrew, wouldn't the following patch be more adequate? > >> > >> diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c > >> index 1e2ae9d59b88..80f228258a92 100644 > >> --- a/net/dsa/slave.c > >> +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c > >> @@ -1063,6 +1063,10 @@ static int dsa_slave_vlan_rx_kill_vid(struct > >> net_device *dev, __be16 proto, > >> struct bridge_vlan_info info; > >> int ret; > >> > >> + /* VID 0 has a special meaning and is never programmed in > >> hardware */ > >> + if (!vid) > >> + return 0; > >> + > >> /* Check for a possible bridge VLAN entry now since there is no > >> * need to emulate the switchdev prepare + commit phase. > >> */ > > > Kernel currently does, but it is caught in > mv88e6xxx_port_check_hw_vlan() and returns -ENOTSUPP from there.
But VID 0 has a special meaning for the kernel, it means the port's private database (when it is isolated, non-bridged), it is not meant to be programmed in the switch. That's why I would've put that knowledge into the DSA layer, which job is to translate the kernel operations to the (dumb) DSA drivers. I hope I'm seeing things correctly here. Thanks, Vivien
