Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:21:43 +0200
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@gmail.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Hans Schultz <schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Stephen Suryaputra <ssuryaextr@gmail.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com>,
        Amit Cohen <amcohen@nvidia.com>,
        Po-Hsu Lin <po-hsu.lin@canonical.com>,
        Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@corigine.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add support for
 bridge port locked mode
Message-ID: <YhIIJxxXP3JzD60/@shredder>
References: <20220218155148.2329797-1-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com>
 <20220218155148.2329797-5-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com>
 <20220219100034.lh343dkmc4fbiad3@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220219100034.lh343dkmc4fbiad3@skbuf>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 12:00:34PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 04:51:47PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
> > index ab41619a809b..46b7381899a0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
> > @@ -1234,6 +1234,39 @@ int mv88e6xxx_port_set_mirror(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> >  
> > +int mv88e6xxx_port_set_lock(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> > +			    bool locked)
> > +{
> > +	u16 reg;
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	err = mv88e6xxx_port_read(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0, &reg);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	reg &= ~MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_SA_FILT_MASK;
> > +	if (locked)
> > +		reg |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_SA_FILT_DROP_ON_LOCK;
> > +
> > +	err = mv88e6xxx_port_write(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0, reg);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	err = mv88e6xxx_port_read(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR, &reg);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	reg &= ~MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR_LOCKED_PORT;
> > +	if (locked)
> > +		reg |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR_LOCKED_PORT;
> > +
> > +	err = mv88e6xxx_port_write(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR, reg);
> 
> 	return mv88e6xxx_port_write(...);

Not familiar with mv88e6xxx, but shouldn't there be a rollback of
previous operations? Specifically mv88e6xxx_port_write()

> 
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}