I have no idea why this code is here, but I have 2 hypotheses: 1. A desperate attempt to keep untagged traffic working when the bridge deletes the pvid on a port.
There was a fairly okay discussion here: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ca+h21hrrmrlh-rjbghejstzd6_qprsd3rkvrqf-wnkkrgkc...@mail.gmail.com/#t which established that in vlan_filtering=1 mode, the absence of a pvid should denote that the ingress port should drop untagged and priority tagged traffic. While in vlan_filtering=0 mode, nothing should change. So in vlan_filtering=1 mode, we should simply let things happen, and not attempt to save the day. And in vlan_filtering=0 mode, the pvid is 0 anyway, no need to do anything. 2. The driver encodes the native VLAN (ocelot_port->vid) value of 0 as special, meaning "not valid". There are checks based on that. But there are no such checks for the ocelot_port->pvid value of 0. In fact, that's a perfectly valid value, which is used in standalone mode. Maybe there was some confusion and the author thought that 0 means "invalid" here as well. In conclusion, delete the code*. *in fact we'll add it back later, in a slightly different form, but for an entirely different reason than the one for which this exists now. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.olt...@nxp.com> --- drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c index bc5b15d7bce7..ae25a79bf907 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c @@ -293,10 +293,6 @@ int ocelot_vlan_del(struct ocelot *ocelot, int port, u16 vid) if (ret) return ret; - /* Ingress */ - if (ocelot_port->pvid == vid) - ocelot_port_set_pvid(ocelot, port, 0); - /* Egress */ if (ocelot_port->vid == vid) ocelot_port_set_native_vlan(ocelot, port, 0); -- 2.25.1
