[PATCH v2 2/2] drivers: net:ethernet: cpsw: add support for VLAN

[Francois Romieu]

Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm at ti.com> :
[...]
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt
> index 6ddd028..99696bf 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt
> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ Required properties:
>  Optional properties:
>  - ti,hwmods		: Must be "cpgmac0"
>  - no_bd_ram		: Must be 0 or 1
> +- default_vlan		: Specifies Default VLAN for non tagged packets
> +			  ALE processing

Isn't it a device-tree hack for what should belong to a common API ?

[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
> index a40750e..6c66f01 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
[...]
> @@ -607,14 +611,41 @@ static void cpsw_slave_open(struct cpsw_slave *slave, struct cpsw_priv *priv)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static inline void cpsw_add_default_vlan(struct cpsw_priv *priv)
> +{
> +	writel(priv->data.default_vlan, &priv->host_port_regs->port_vlan);
> +	if (priv->version == CPSW_VERSION_1) {
> +		slave_write(&priv->slaves[0], priv->data.default_vlan,
> +			    CPSW1_PORT_VLAN);
> +		slave_write(&priv->slaves[1], priv->data.default_vlan,
> +			    CPSW1_PORT_VLAN);
> +	} else {
> +		slave_write(&priv->slaves[0], priv->data.default_vlan,
> +			    CPSW2_PORT_VLAN);
> +		slave_write(&priv->slaves[1], priv->data.default_vlan,
> +			    CPSW2_PORT_VLAN);
> +	}
> +	cpsw_ale_add_vlan(priv->ale, priv->data.default_vlan,
> +			ALE_ALL_PORTS << priv->host_port,
> +			ALE_ALL_PORTS << priv->host_port,
> +			ALE_ALL_PORTS << priv->host_port,
> +			(BIT(1) | BIT(2)) << priv->host_port);
> +}

static inline void cpsw_add_default_vlan(struct cpsw_priv *priv)
{
	const int vlan = priv->data.default_vlan;
	const int port = priv->host_port;
	u32 reg;
	int i;

	reg = (priv->version == CPSW_VERSION_1) ? CPSW1_PORT_VLAN :
	      CPSW2_PORT_VLAN;

	writel(vlan, &priv->host_port_regs->port_vlan);

	for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++)
		slave_write(priv->slaves + i, vlan, reg);

	cpsw_ale_add_vlan(priv->ale, vlan, ALE_ALL_PORTS << port,
			  ALE_ALL_PORTS << port, ALE_ALL_PORTS << port,
			  (BIT(1) | BIT(2)) << port);
}

... or somewhere between both. Your call.

[...]
> @@ -933,6 +967,55 @@ static void cpsw_ndo_poll_controller(struct net_device *ndev)
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +static inline void cpsw_add_vlan_ale_entry(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
> +				unsigned short vid)
> +{
> +	cpsw_ale_add_vlan(priv->ale, vid, ALE_ALL_PORTS << priv->host_port,
> +			0, ALE_ALL_PORTS << priv->host_port,
> +			(BIT(1) | BIT(2)) << priv->host_port);

"(BIT(1) | BIT(2))" is repeated a couple of times.

[...]
> +static int cpsw_ndo_vlan_rx_add_vid(struct net_device *ndev,
> +		unsigned short vid)
> +{
> +	struct cpsw_priv *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
> +
> +	if (vid == priv->data.default_vlan)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&priv->lock);
> +
> +	dev_info(priv->dev, "Adding vlanid %d to vlan filter\n", vid);
> +	cpsw_add_vlan_ale_entry(priv, vid);
> +
> +	spin_unlock(&priv->lock);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int cpsw_ndo_vlan_rx_kill_vid(struct net_device *ndev,
> +		unsigned short vid)
> +{
> +	struct cpsw_priv *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
> +
> +	if (vid == priv->data.default_vlan)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&priv->lock);
> +
> +	dev_info(priv->dev, "removing vlanid %d from vlan filter\n", vid);
> +	cpsw_ale_del_vlan(priv->ale, vid, 0);
> +	cpsw_ale_del_ucast(priv->ale, priv->mac_addr,
> +			   priv->host_port, ALE_VLAN, vid);
> +	cpsw_ale_del_mcast(priv->ale, priv->ndev->broadcast, 0, ALE_VLAN, vid);
> +
> +	spin_unlock(&priv->lock);

What are you trying to achieve with the lock ?

It is not used anywhere else and both cpsw_ndo_vlan_rx_{add, kill}_vid are
called under RTNL.

-- 
Ueimor