On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:42, Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
The port's default default FID does not belong to any VLAN, so it is
never loaded in the VTU. That is why it handled separately. So, no :)
