> > > > +static int get_vlan_table(struct dsa_switch *ds, u16 vid, u32
> *vlan_table)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct ksz_device *dev = ds->priv;
> > > > + u8 data;
> > > > + int timeout = 1000;
> > > > +
> > > > + ksz_write16(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_ENTRY_INDEX__2, vid &
> > > VLAN_INDEX_M);
> > > > + ksz_write8(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_CTRL, VLAN_READ | VLAN_START);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* wait to be cleared */
> > > > + data = 0;
> > > > + do {
> > > > + ksz_read8(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_CTRL, &data);
> > > > + if (!(data & VLAN_START))
> > > > + break;
> > > > + usleep_range(1, 10);
> > > > + } while (timeout-- > 0);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!timeout)
> > > > + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > +
> > > > + ksz_read32(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_ENTRY__4, &vlan_table[0]);
> > > > + ksz_read32(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_ENTRY_UNTAG__4,
> > > &vlan_table[1]);
> > > > + ksz_read32(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_ENTRY_PORTS__4, &vlan_table[2]);
> > > > +
> > > > + ksz_write8(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_CTRL, 0);
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int set_vlan_table(struct dsa_switch *ds, u16 vid, u32
> *vlan_table)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct ksz_device *dev = ds->priv;
> > > > + u8 data;
> > > > + int timeout = 1000;
> > > > +
> > > > + ksz_write32(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_ENTRY__4, vlan_table[0]);
> > > > + ksz_write32(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_ENTRY_UNTAG__4, vlan_table[1]);
> > > > + ksz_write32(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_ENTRY_PORTS__4, vlan_table[2]);
> > > > +
> > > > + ksz_write16(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_ENTRY_INDEX__2, vid &
> > > VLAN_INDEX_M);
> > > > + ksz_write8(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_CTRL, VLAN_START | VLAN_WRITE);
> > > > +
> > > > + do {
> > > > + ksz_read8(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_CTRL, &data);
> > > > + if (!(data & VLAN_START))
> > > > + break;
> > > > + usleep_range(1, 10);
> > > > + } while (timeout-- > 0);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!timeout)
> > > > + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > +
> > > > + ksz_write8(dev, REG_SW_VLAN_CTRL, 0);
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&dev->vlancache_mutex);
> > >
> > > Humm. I think this is wrong. Shouldn't you hold the mutex while you
> > > change the hardware as well as the cache. Otherwise there is a risk
> > > your cache could be different to the hardware when you get a race
> > > between two threads?
> > Thanks for pointing this out.
> > Rather than two separate mutex (H/W and vlancache), will put one HW
> access mutex
> > around get_vlan_table and set_vlan_table to cover vlancache access too.
> Even though
> > little bit overhead. How do you think?
>
> I would move the mutex_lock(&dev->vlancache_mutex) to be beginning of
> the function. It then protects both the hardware and the vlan cache,
> and keeps them synchronised.
>
Andrew,
I believe mutex is needed in get_vlan_table() too.
vlancache_mutex doesn't match exactly what it does, I would change name to
vlan_mutex.
Thanks.
- Woojung
