On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 18:10:18 +0200, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:40:57 +0200, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 01:35:46PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> > > > When disabling a port, that is not for the driver to decide what to
> > > > do with the STP state. This is already handled by the DSA layer.
> > >
> > > Putting the port into STP disabled state is how you actually disable
> > > it, for the mv88e6xxx. So this is not really about STP, it is about
> > > powering off the port. Maybe a comment is needed, rather than removing
> > > the code?
> >
> > This is not for the driver to decide, the stack already handles that.
> > Otherwise, calling dsa_port_disable on a bridged port would result in
> > mv88e6xxx forcing the STP state to Disabled while this is not expected.
[...]
> Are you saying the core already sets the STP to disabled, for ports
> which are unused? I did not spot that in your previous patch?
Just look at dsa_port_disable Andrew:
void dsa_port_disable(struct dsa_port *dp)
{
struct dsa_switch *ds = dp->ds;
int port = dp->index;
if (!dp->bridge_dev)
dsa_port_set_state_now(dp, BR_STATE_DISABLED);
if (ds->ops->port_disable)
ds->ops->port_disable(ds, port);
}
The only thing worth arguing here is whether it makes sense to call
ds->ops->disable for a bridged port, or should we simply return right
away in this case. But this would be an independent patch anyway.
Thank you,
Vivien
