Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 04 Dec 2022 14:26:43 +0100 | From | netdev@kapio-te ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 net-next 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: mac-auth/MAB implementation |
| |
On 2022-11-15 23:23, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > Is it beneficial in any way to pass the violation type to > mv88e6xxx_handle_violation(), considering that we only call it from the > "miss" code path, and if we were to call it with something else > ("member"), > it would return a strange error code (1)? > > I don't necessarily see any way in which we'll need to handle the > "member" (migration, right?) violation any different in the future, > except ignore it, either. >
MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_OP_AGE_OUT_VIOLATION will also be handled, and it could be that MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_OP_FULL_VIOLATION would want handling, though I don't know of plans for that.
The MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_OP_MEMBER_VIOLATION interrupt can be suppressed if we want.
I think a switch on the type is the most readable code form.
p.s. I have changed it, so that global1_atu.c reads:
if (val & MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_OP_MISS_VIOLATION) { dev_err_ratelimited(chip->dev, "ATU miss violation for %pM portvec %x spid %d\n", entry.mac, entry.portvec, spid); chip->ports[spid].atu_miss_violation++;
if (!fid) { err = -EINVAL; goto out; }
if (chip->ports[spid].mab) err = mv88e6xxx_handle_violation(chip, spid, &entry, fid, MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_OP_MISS_VIOLATION); if (err) goto out; }
with the use of out_unlock in the chip mutex locked case.
|  |