On 06/07/2017 10:15 AM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
> Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> So as I said in v2, now that a driver is guaranteed that dp->cpu_dp is
>>> correctly assigned at setup time, isn't better (especially for future
>>> multi-CPU support) to provide an helper which returns the CPU port for a
>>> given port? i.e. dsa_get_cpu_port(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port).
>>>
>>> Or is there something blocking? I might be wrong.
>>
>> mt7530.c needs access to the CPU port at ops->setup() time which is
>> why this is still here.
>
> Yes, mt7530 is the only one doing this and has an hardcoded CPU port. So
> what I meant was, shouldn't we have this instead:
>
> struct dsa_port *dsa_get_cpu_port(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
> {
> return ds->ports[port].cpu_dp;
> }
We don't actually have a CPU port point to itself:
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ds->num_ports; i++) {
+ p = &ds->ports[i];
+ if (!dsa_port_is_valid(p) ||
+ i == index) <=============
+ continue;
+
+ p->cpu_dp = port;
+ }
}
>
> And:
>
> - dn = ds->dst->cpu_dp->netdev->dev.of_node->parent;
> + cpu_dp = dsa_get_cpu_port(ds, MT7530_CPU_PORT);
> + dn = cpu_dp->netdev->dev.of_node->parent;
If we are giving the port number to get its cpu_dp pointer back, that
seems a bit pointless.
I still think the helper with fls(ds->cpu_port_mask) - 1 is better in
that it will return what you have configured from Device Tree/platform
data. MT7530 does allow the CPU port being arbitrary, and it would
disable MTK tags in that case.
Thanks!
--
Florian
