On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:13:56PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> @@ -2184,25 +2230,7 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump(struct
> mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> - /* Dump VLANs' Filtering Information Databases */
> - vlan.vid = mv88e6xxx_max_vid(chip);
> - vlan.valid = false;
> -
> - do {
> - err = mv88e6xxx_vtu_getnext(chip, &vlan);
> - if (err)
> - return err;
> -
> - if (!vlan.valid)
> - break;
> -
> - err = mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_fid(chip, vlan.fid, vlan.vid, port,
> - cb, data);
> - if (err)
> - return err;
> - } while (vlan.vid < mv88e6xxx_max_vid(chip));
> -
> - return err;
> + return mv88e6xxx_vtu_walk(chip, mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_vlan, &ctx);
> }
Can the mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_fid(VLAN 0) located above this call be
covered by the same mv88e6xxx_vtu_walk?
