Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:05:24 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     =?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgTMOpZ2Vy?= <clement.leger@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>,
        =?utf-8?Q?Miqu=C3=A8l?= Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Milan Stevanovic <milan.stevanovic@se.com>,
        Jimmy Lalande <jimmy.lalande@se.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Jean-Pierre Geslin <jean-pierre.geslin@non.se.com>,
        Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/12] net: dsa: rzn1-a5psw: add Renesas RZ/N1
 advanced 5 port switch driver
Message-ID: <20220415110524.4lhue7gcwqlhk2iv@skbuf>
References: <20220414122250.158113-1-clement.leger@bootlin.com>
 <20220414122250.158113-7-clement.leger@bootlin.com>
 <20220414144709.tpxiiaiy2hu4n7fd@skbuf>
 <20220415113453.1a076746@fixe.home>
 <20220415105503.ztl4zhoyua2qzelt@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220415105503.ztl4zhoyua2qzelt@skbuf>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 01:55:03PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > The selftests don't cover nearly enough, but just to make sure that they
> > > pass for your switch, when you use 2 switch ports as h1 and h2 (hosts),
> > > and 2 ports as swp1 and swp2? There's surprisingly little that you do on
> > > .port_bridge_join, I need to study the code more.
> > 
> > Port isolation is handled by using a pattern matcher which is enabled
> > for each port at setup. If set, the port packet will only be forwarded
> > to the CPU port. When bridging is needed, the pattern matching is
> > disabled and thus, the packets are forwarded between all the ports that
> > are enabled in the bridge.
> 
> Is there some public documentation for this pattern matcher?

Again, I realize I haven't made it clear what concerns me here.
On ->port_bridge_join() and ->port_bridge_leave(), the "bridge" is given
to you as argument. 2 ports may join br0, and 2 ports may join br1.
You disregard the "bridge" argument. So you enable forwarding between
br0 and br1. What I'd like to see is what the hardware can do in terms
of this "pattern matching", to improve on this situation.