On 9/28/2019 1:26 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:40 PM Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/27/19 9:39 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> There has been some confusion between the port number and
>>> the VLAN ID in this driver. What we need to check for
>>> validity is the VLAN ID, nothing else.
>>>
>>> The current confusion came from assigning a few default
>>> VLANs for default routing and we need to rewrite that
>>> properly.
>>>
>>> Instead of checking if the port number is a valid VLAN
>>> ID, check the actual VLAN IDs passed in to the callback
>>> one by one as expected.
>>>
>>> Fixes: d8652956cf37 ("net: dsa: realtek-smi: Add Realtek SMI driver")
>>> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/dsa/rtl8366.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/rtl8366.c b/drivers/net/dsa/rtl8366.c
>>> index ca3d17e43ed8..e2c91b75e843 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/rtl8366.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/rtl8366.c
>>> @@ -340,9 +340,11 @@ int rtl8366_vlan_prepare(struct dsa_switch *ds, int
>>> port,
>>> {
>>> struct realtek_smi *smi = ds->priv;
>>> int ret;
>>> + int i;
>>>
>>> - if (!smi->ops->is_vlan_valid(smi, port))
>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>> + for (i = vlan->vid_begin; i < vlan->vid_end; i++)
>>> + if (!smi->ops->is_vlan_valid(smi, port))
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>
>> You are still checking the port and not the "i" (VLAN ID) argument here,
>> is there something I am missing?
>
> No you're right, just correcting old mistakes by making
> new mistakes .. I'll fix, thanks!
>
Do we need to duplicate the same is_vlan_valid() check in both the
vlan_prepare and vlan_add callbacks?
--
Florian
