On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 03:21:21PM +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 16:30 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > @@ -25,20 +28,37 @@ static struct sk_buff *mtk_tag_xmit(struct sk_buff
> > > *skb,
> > > {
> > > struct dsa_port *dp = dsa_slave_to_port(dev);
> > > u8 *mtk_tag;
> > > + bool is_vlan_skb = true;
> >
> > ..
> >
> > > + /* Mark tag attribute on special tag insertion to notify hardware
> > > + * whether that's a combined special tag with 802.1Q header.
> > > + */
> > > + mtk_tag[0] = is_vlan_skb ? MTK_HDR_XMIT_TAGGED_TPID_8100 :
> > > + MTK_HDR_XMIT_UNTAGGED;
> > > mtk_tag[1] = (1 << dp->index) & MTK_HDR_XMIT_DP_BIT_MASK;
> > > - mtk_tag[2] = 0;
> > > - mtk_tag[3] = 0;
> > > +
> > > + /* Tag control information is kept for 802.1Q */
> > > + if (!is_vlan_skb) {
> > > + mtk_tag[2] = 0;
> > > + mtk_tag[3] = 0;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > return skb;
> > > }
> >
> > Hi Sean
> >
> > So you can mark a packet for egress. What about ingress? How do you
> > know the VLAN/PORT combination for packets the CPU receives? I would
> > of expected a similar change to mtk_tag_rcv().
> >
> > Andrew
>
> Hi, Andrew
>
> It's unnecessary for extra handling in mtk_tag_rcv() when VLAN tag is
> present since it is able to put the VLAN tag after the special tag and
> then follow the existing way to parse.
Hi Sean
O.K. Please mention this in the commit message. Since it was something
i was expecting, it should be documented why it is not needed.
Thanks
Andrew
