Hi Russell,
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:10:16 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > True, let's stick with ops->port_egress_flood(ds, port, bool uc, bool mc).
> > I do not think that it is necessary to add support for BR_BCAST_FLOOD yet,
> > we can extend this routine later if we need to.
> >
> > Your dsa_port_bridge_flags() core function can notify the understood
> > features. This will allow us to scope the support of the bridge flags in
> > the core, and preventing the drivers to do that themselves.
>
> So, if we have ops->port_egress_flood, then we tell bridge that
> we support BR_FLOOD | BR_MCAST_FLOOD, irrespective of whether the
> bridge actually supports both?
I would say so yes. If a driver implements port_egress_flood(), this means
its switch device supports both BR_FLOOD | BR_MCAST_FLOOD.
I have one concern though. The documentation of mcast_flood for bridge(8)
says that this flag "controls whether a given port will *be flooded* with
[unknown] multicast traffic". From this I understand allowing this port to
*receive* frames with unknown destination addresses. But with mv88e6xxx, we
program whether the port is allowed to egress a frame that has an unknown
destination address. Otherwise, it will not go out this port.
Am I mistaken? If I understood correctly, is it safe to assume it is the
same thing we are implementing here?
Thanks,
Vivien
