diff mbox series

[RFC,net-next,v2,3/4] net: dsa: mt7530: set STP state also on filter ID 1

Message ID 20210731191023.1329446-4-dqfext@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series mt7530 software fallback bridging fix | expand

Commit Message

Qingfang Deng July 31, 2021, 7:10 p.m. UTC
As filter ID 1 is used, set STP state also on it.

Signed-off-by: DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c | 3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Vladimir Oltean Aug. 2, 2021, 1:43 p.m. UTC | #1
On Sun, Aug 01, 2021 at 03:10:21AM +0800, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> As filter ID 1 is used, set STP state also on it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c | 3 ++-
>  drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
> index 3876e265f844..38d6ce37d692 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
> @@ -1147,7 +1147,8 @@ mt7530_stp_state_set(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, u8 state)
>  		break;
>  	}
>  
> -	mt7530_rmw(priv, MT7530_SSP_P(port), FID_PST_MASK, stp_state);
> +	mt7530_rmw(priv, MT7530_SSP_P(port), FID_PST_MASK,
> +		   FID_PST(stp_state));
>  }
>  
>  static int
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h
> index a308886fdebc..294ff1cbd9e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h
> @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ enum mt7530_vlan_egress_attr {
>  
>  /* Register for port STP state control */
>  #define MT7530_SSP_P(x)			(0x2000 + ((x) * 0x100))
> -#define  FID_PST(x)			((x) & 0x3)

Shouldn't these macros have _two_ arguments, the FID and the port state?

> +#define  FID_PST(x)			(((x) & 0x3) * 0x5)

"* 5": explanation?

>  #define  FID_PST_MASK			FID_PST(0x3)
>  
>  enum mt7530_stp_state {
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

I don't exactly understand how this patch works, sorry.
Are you altering port state only on bridged ports, or also on standalone
ports after this patch? Are standalone ports in the proper STP state
(FORWARDING)?
Qingfang Deng Aug. 2, 2021, 3:31 p.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 04:43:36PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 2021 at 03:10:21AM +0800, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h
> > @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ enum mt7530_vlan_egress_attr {
> >  
> >  /* Register for port STP state control */
> >  #define MT7530_SSP_P(x)			(0x2000 + ((x) * 0x100))
> > -#define  FID_PST(x)			((x) & 0x3)
> 
> Shouldn't these macros have _two_ arguments, the FID and the port state?
> 
> > +#define  FID_PST(x)			(((x) & 0x3) * 0x5)
> 
> "* 5": explanation?
> 
> >  #define  FID_PST_MASK			FID_PST(0x3)
> >  
> >  enum mt7530_stp_state {
> > -- 
> > 2.25.1
> > 
> 
> I don't exactly understand how this patch works, sorry.
> Are you altering port state only on bridged ports, or also on standalone
> ports after this patch? Are standalone ports in the proper STP state
> (FORWARDING)?

The current code only sets FID 0's STP state. This patch sets both 0's and
1's states.

The *5 part is binary magic. [1:0] is FID 0's state, [3:2] is FID 1's state
and so on. Since 5 == 4'b0101, the value in [1:0] is copied to [3:2] after
the multiplication.

Perhaps I should only change FID 1's state.
Vladimir Oltean Aug. 2, 2021, 3:42 p.m. UTC | #3
On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 11:31:29PM +0800, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 04:43:36PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 01, 2021 at 03:10:21AM +0800, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h
> > > @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ enum mt7530_vlan_egress_attr {
> > >
> > >  /* Register for port STP state control */
> > >  #define MT7530_SSP_P(x)			(0x2000 + ((x) * 0x100))
> > > -#define  FID_PST(x)			((x) & 0x3)
> >
> > Shouldn't these macros have _two_ arguments, the FID and the port state?
> >
> > > +#define  FID_PST(x)			(((x) & 0x3) * 0x5)
> >
> > "* 5": explanation?
> >
> > >  #define  FID_PST_MASK			FID_PST(0x3)
> > >
> > >  enum mt7530_stp_state {
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
> >
> > I don't exactly understand how this patch works, sorry.
> > Are you altering port state only on bridged ports, or also on standalone
> > ports after this patch? Are standalone ports in the proper STP state
> > (FORWARDING)?
>
> The current code only sets FID 0's STP state. This patch sets both 0's and
> 1's states.
>
> The *5 part is binary magic. [1:0] is FID 0's state, [3:2] is FID 1's state
> and so on. Since 5 == 4'b0101, the value in [1:0] is copied to [3:2] after
> the multiplication.
>
> Perhaps I should only change FID 1's state.

Keep the patches dumb for us mortals please.
If you only change FID 1's state, I am concerned that the driver no
longer initializes FID 0's port state, and might leave that to the
default set by other pre-kernel initialization stage (bootloader?).
So even if you might assume that standalone ports are FORWARDING, they
might not be.
Qingfang Deng Aug. 2, 2021, 3:58 p.m. UTC | #4
On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 06:42:26PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 11:31:29PM +0800, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> > The current code only sets FID 0's STP state. This patch sets both 0's and
> > 1's states.
> >
> > The *5 part is binary magic. [1:0] is FID 0's state, [3:2] is FID 1's state
> > and so on. Since 5 == 4'b0101, the value in [1:0] is copied to [3:2] after
> > the multiplication.
> >
> > Perhaps I should only change FID 1's state.
> 
> Keep the patches dumb for us mortals please.
> If you only change FID 1's state, I am concerned that the driver no
> longer initializes FID 0's port state, and might leave that to the
> default set by other pre-kernel initialization stage (bootloader?).
> So even if you might assume that standalone ports are FORWARDING, they
> might not be.

The default value is forwarding, and the switch is reset by the driver
so any pre-kernel initialization stage is no more.
Vladimir Oltean Aug. 2, 2021, 9 p.m. UTC | #5
On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 11:58:10PM +0800, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 06:42:26PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 11:31:29PM +0800, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> > > The current code only sets FID 0's STP state. This patch sets both 0's and
> > > 1's states.
> > >
> > > The *5 part is binary magic. [1:0] is FID 0's state, [3:2] is FID 1's state
> > > and so on. Since 5 == 4'b0101, the value in [1:0] is copied to [3:2] after
> > > the multiplication.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I should only change FID 1's state.
> >
> > Keep the patches dumb for us mortals please.
> > If you only change FID 1's state, I am concerned that the driver no
> > longer initializes FID 0's port state, and might leave that to the
> > default set by other pre-kernel initialization stage (bootloader?).
> > So even if you might assume that standalone ports are FORWARDING, they
> > might not be.
>
> The default value is forwarding, and the switch is reset by the driver
> so any pre-kernel initialization stage is no more.

So then change the port STP state only for FID 1 and resend. Any other
reason why this patch series is marked RFC? It looked okay to me otherwise.
Qingfang Deng Aug. 3, 2021, 8:23 a.m. UTC | #6
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 12:00:06AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> 
> So then change the port STP state only for FID 1 and resend. Any other
> reason why this patch series is marked RFC? It looked okay to me otherwise.

Okay, will resend with that change and without RFC.

By the way, if I were to implement .port_fast_age, should I only flush
dynamically learned FDB entries? What about MDB entries?
Vladimir Oltean Aug. 3, 2021, 8:48 a.m. UTC | #7
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 04:23:16PM +0800, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 12:00:06AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > 
> > So then change the port STP state only for FID 1 and resend. Any other
> > reason why this patch series is marked RFC? It looked okay to me otherwise.
> 
> Okay, will resend with that change and without RFC.
> 
> By the way, if I were to implement .port_fast_age, should I only flush
> dynamically learned FDB entries? What about MDB entries?

Yes, only dynamically learned entries. That should also answer the
question about MDB entries, since a multicast address should never be a
source MAC address so they should never be dynamically learned.
The bridge should handle the deletion of static entries when needed.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
index 3876e265f844..38d6ce37d692 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
@@ -1147,7 +1147,8 @@  mt7530_stp_state_set(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, u8 state)
 		break;
 	}
 
-	mt7530_rmw(priv, MT7530_SSP_P(port), FID_PST_MASK, stp_state);
+	mt7530_rmw(priv, MT7530_SSP_P(port), FID_PST_MASK,
+		   FID_PST(stp_state));
 }
 
 static int
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h
index a308886fdebc..294ff1cbd9e0 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.h
@@ -181,7 +181,7 @@  enum mt7530_vlan_egress_attr {
 
 /* Register for port STP state control */
 #define MT7530_SSP_P(x)			(0x2000 + ((x) * 0x100))
-#define  FID_PST(x)			((x) & 0x3)
+#define  FID_PST(x)			(((x) & 0x3) * 0x5)
 #define  FID_PST_MASK			FID_PST(0x3)
 
 enum mt7530_stp_state {