Hi Florian,
On Fri, 31 May 2019 09:34:03 -0700, Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 5/31/19 7:37 AM, 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.
> >> */
> >
> > Hi Vivien
> >
> > If we put this in rx_kill_vid, we should probably have something
> > similar in rx_add_vid, just in case the kernel does start using VID 0.
>
> We use the prepare/commit model in the rx_add_vid() path so we deal with
> -EOPNOTSUPP, that was caught fairly early on by Heiner when I added
> programming of VLAN filtering through rx_{add,kill}_vid.
>
> Nikita's patcha s it stands is correct and would make both
> mv88e6xxx_port_check_hw_vlan() and mv88e6xxx_vtu_get() consistent.
OK, I'll double check if I can simplify the management of VID 0 in mv88e6xxx to
match what other switches do. In the meantime, Nikita's approach is consistent.
Thank you,
Vivien
