Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add support for MV88E6220

From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Hubert Feurstein <h.feurstein@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add support for MV88E6220
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:49:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190730134924.GH28552@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190730100429.32479-2-h.feurstein@gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:04:26PM +0200, Hubert Feurstein wrote:
> The MV88E6220 is almost the same as MV88E6250 except that the ports 2-4 are
> not routed to pins. So the usable ports are 0, 1, 5 and 6.

Hi Hubert

Do the registers for the ports exist?

> +	[MV88E6220] = {
> +		.prod_num = MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6220,
> +		.family = MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6250,
> +		.name = "Marvell 88E6220",
> +		.num_databases = 64,
> +
> +		/* Ports 2-4 are not routed to pins
> +		 * => usable ports 0, 1, 5, 6
> +		 */
> +		.num_ports = 7,

I'm wondering if we should add something like

		.invalid_port_mask = BIT(2) | BIT(3) | BIT(4)

and

        /* Setup Switch Port Registers */
        for (i = 0; i < mv88e6xxx_num_ports(chip); i++) {
+		if (chip->info->invalid_port_mask & BIT(i) &&
+		    !dsa_is_unused_port(ds, i))
+		    return -EINVAL;
                if (dsa_is_unused_port(ds, i)) {
                        err = mv88e6xxx_port_set_state(chip, i,
                                                       BR_STATE_DISABLED);

	Andrew