Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 4/5] net: dsa: realtek-smi: add rtl8365mb subdriver for RTL8365MB-VC

From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To: "Alvin Šipraga" <alvin@pqrs.dk>
Cc: "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	"Andrew Lunn" <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	"Vivien Didelot" <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
	"Florian Fainelli" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Heiner Kallweit" <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	"Russell King" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	mir@bang-olufsen.dk, "Alvin Šipraga" <alsi@bang-olufsen.dk>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 4/5] net: dsa: realtek-smi: add rtl8365mb subdriver for RTL8365MB-VC
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 01:48:05 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210822224805.p4ifpynog2jvx3il@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210822193145.1312668-5-alvin@pqrs.dk>

On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 09:31:42PM +0200, Alvin Šipraga wrote:
> +static bool rtl8365mb_is_vlan_valid(struct realtek_smi *smi, unsigned int vlan)

Maybe it would be more efficient to make smi->ops->is_vlan_valid optional?

> +{
> +	if (vlan > RTL8365MB_VIDMAX)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
> +static int rtl8365mb_enable_vlan(struct realtek_smi *smi, bool enable)
> +{
> +	dev_dbg(smi->dev, "%s VLAN\n", enable ? "enable" : "disable");
> +	return regmap_update_bits(
> +		smi->map, RTL8365MB_VLAN_CTRL_REG, RTL8365MB_VLAN_CTRL_EN_MASK,
> +		FIELD_PREP(RTL8365MB_VLAN_CTRL_EN_MASK, enable ? 1 : 0));
> +}
> +
> +static int rtl8365mb_enable_vlan4k(struct realtek_smi *smi, bool enable)
> +{
> +	return rtl8365mb_enable_vlan(smi, enable);
> +}

I'm not going to lie, the realtek_smi_ops VLAN methods seem highly
cryptic to me. Why do you do the same thing from .enable_vlan4k as from
.enable_vlan? What are these supposed to do in the first place?
Or to quote from rtl8366_vlan_add: "what's with this 4k business?"

Also, stupid question: what do you need the VLAN ops for if you haven't
implemented .port_bridge_join and .port_bridge_leave? How have you
tested them?