MIME-Version: 1.0
Date:   Sat, 04 Feb 2023 09:48:24 +0100
From:   netdev@kapio-technology.com
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@microchip.com>,
        "maintainer:MICROCHIP KSZ SERIES ETHERNET SWITCH DRIVER" 
        <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>, Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@mediatek.com>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment_L=C3=A9ger?= <clement.leger@bootlin.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:RENESAS RZ/N1 A5PSW SWITCH DRIVER" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ETHERNET BRIDGE" <bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: implementation of
 dynamic ATU entries
In-Reply-To: <Y94TebdRQRHMMj/c@corigine.com>
References: <20230130173429.3577450-1-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20230130173429.3577450-6-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <Y9lkXlyXg1d1D0j3@corigine.com>
 <9b12275969a204739ccfab972d90f20f@kapio-technology.com>
 <Y9zDxlwSn1EfCTba@corigine.com> <20230203204422.4wrhyathxfhj6hdt@skbuf>
 <Y94TebdRQRHMMj/c@corigine.com>
User-Agent: Gigahost Webmail
Message-ID: <4abbe32d007240b9c3aea9c8ca936fa3@kapio-technology.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-02-04 09:12, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:44:22PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:20:22AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
>> > > else if (someflag)
>> > >         dosomething();
>> > >
>> > > For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually exclusive,
>> > > as they will not make sense together with the potential flags I know, but
>> > > that can change at some time of course.
>> >
>> > Yes, I see that is workable. I do feel that checking for other flags would
>> > be a bit more robust. But as you say, there are none. So whichever
>> > approach you prefer is fine by me.
>> 
>> The model we have for unsupported bits in the 
>> SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS
>> and SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS handlers is essentially this:
>> 
>> 	if (flags & ~(supported_flag_mask))
>> 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> 
>> 	if (flags & supported_flag_1)
>> 		...
>> 
>> 	if (flags & supported_flag_2)
>> 		...
>> 
>> I suppose applying this model here would address Simon's extensibility 
>> concern.
> 
> Yes, that is the model I had in mind.

The only thing is that we actually need to return both 0 and -EOPNOTSUPP 
for unsupported flags. The dynamic flag requires 0 when not supported 
(and supported) AFAICS.
Setting a mask as 'supported' for a feature that is not really supported 
defeats the notion of 'supported' IMHO.