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;
Message-ID: <64c2c142.5d0a0220.9ae33.deab@mx.google.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 21:10:56 +0200
From:   Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Atin Bainada <hi@atinb.me>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 3/3] net: dsa: qca8k: limit user ports access to
 the first CPU port on setup
References: <20230724033058.16795-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20230724033058.16795-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20230724033058.16795-3-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20230724033058.16795-3-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20230726131851.w5ty2mftr7tdl3mi@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230726131851.w5ty2mftr7tdl3mi@skbuf>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 04:18:51PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 05:30:58AM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > In preparation for multi-CPU support, set CPU port LOOKUP MEMBER outside
> > the port loop and setup the LOOKUP MEMBER mask for user ports only to
> > the first CPU port.
> > 
> > This is to handle flooding condition where every CPU port is set as
> > target and prevent packet duplication for unknown frames from user ports.
> > 
> > Secondary CPU port LOOKUP MEMBER mask will be setup later when
> > port_change_master will be implemented.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
> > ---
> 
> This is kinda "net.git" material, in the sense that it fixes the current
> driver behavior with device trees from the future, right?

This is not strictly a fix. The secondary CPU (if defined) doesn't have
flood enabled so the switch won't forward packet. It's more of a
cleanup/preparation from my point of view. What do you think?

-- 
	Ansuel