On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:37:39PM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Kevin, Andrew,
>
> Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 08:45:28PM +0000, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >> Hi Vivien,
> >>
> >> On 02/26/2016 12:16 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> >> > + /* allow CPU port or DSA link(s) to send frames to every port */
> >> > + if (dsa_is_cpu_port(ds, port) || dsa_is_dsa_port(ds, port)) {
> >> > + output_ports = mask;
> >> > + } else {
> >
> >> Is this always correct? Are there situations where a CPU or neighboring
> >> switch should not be allowed to access another port? (e.g. Figure 6 or 7
> >> in the 88E6352 functional specification).
>
> Given Linux expectations (described below by Andrew) I'd say yes, this
> is always correct. But I'd be curious to know if someone has counter
> examples for this.
>
> > What do these figures show?
>
> The figure shows the following VLANTable config:
>
> Port 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
> 0 - * * * - - *
> 1 * - * * - - *
> 2 * * - * - - *
> 3 * * * - - - *
> 4 - - - - - * -
> 5 - - - - * - -
> 6 * * * * - - -
>
> There is two independant groups: 0, 1, 2, 3, 6 (LAN, 6 is CPU/Router),
> and 4, 5 (4 is WAN and 5 is CPU/Router):
Ah, two CPU interfaces. We don't support that yet. I do have patches,
but i took a different approach. They just load balance, by some
definition of 'load balance' between the two CPU ports.
Andrew
