[PATCH net-next v2 8/8] net: dsa: mt7530: implement port_change_conduit op

[Jakub Kicinski]

This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
---
net: dsa: mt7530: implement port_change_conduit op

Implements the port_change_conduit operation for the mt7530 driver,
updating the port matrix to forward to a new CPU port. The op is
restricted to MT7531 because MT7530/MT7621 cannot honour per-port CPU
affinity for trapped frames and the MT7988/EN7581/AN7583 switches have
only a single CPU port.

> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
> index c96420c291d5..2f3e734b9f53 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
> @@ -3206,6 +3206,34 @@ static int mt753x_set_mac_eee(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int
> +mt753x_port_change_conduit(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> +			   struct net_device *conduit,
> +			   struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> +{
> +	struct dsa_port *new_cpu_dp = conduit->dsa_ptr;
> +	struct dsa_port *dp = dsa_to_port(ds, port);
> +	struct mt7530_priv *priv = ds->priv;
> +
> +	if (priv->id != ID_MT7531)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

[Low]
Should this branch populate the supplied extack with NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD()
before returning -EOPNOTSUPP?

Because port_change_conduit is registered in the shared mt7530_switch_ops
table, the DSA core's fallback message in dsa_user_change_conduit() ("Driver
does not support changing DSA conduit") is bypassed; that branch only runs
when ds->ops->port_change_conduit is NULL. Neither dsa_port_change_conduit()
nor __dsa_port_change_conduit() in net/dsa/port.c synthesize an extack on
callback failure either.

The result is that on MT7530, MT7621, MT7988, EN7581 and AN7583, userspace
invoking IFLA_DSA_CONDUIT receives EOPNOTSUPP with an empty extack, with
none of the per-chip context that the commit message itself spells out
(single CPU port; MT7530 MFC CPU_PORT trapping limitation). Would a short
NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD() naming the reason be appropriate here?

> +
> +	mutex_lock(&priv->reg_mutex);
> +
> +	/* dp->cpu_dp still points to the old CPU port */
> +	priv->ports[port].pm &= ~PCR_MATRIX(BIT(dp->cpu_dp->index));
> +	priv->ports[port].pm |= PCR_MATRIX(BIT(new_cpu_dp->index));
> +	if (priv->ports[port].enable)
> +		regmap_update_bits(priv->regmap, MT7530_PCR_P(port),
> +				   PCR_MATRIX_MASK, priv->ports[port].pm);
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&priv->reg_mutex);
> +
> +	mt7530_port_fast_age(ds, port);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}