Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210408172353.21143-1-TheSven73@gmail.com> <CAFSKS=O4Yp6gknSyo1TtTO3KJ+FwC6wOAfNkbBaNtL0RLGGsxw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFSKS=O4Yp6gknSyo1TtTO3KJ+FwC6wOAfNkbBaNtL0RLGGsxw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:45:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGngYiVg+XXScqTyUQP-H=dvLq84y31uATy4DDzzBvF1OWxm5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1] Revert "lan743x: trim all 4 bytes of the FCS; not
 just 2"
To:     George McCollister <george.mccollister@gmail.com>
Cc:     Bryan Whitehead <bryan.whitehead@microchip.com>,
        David S Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi George,

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:36 PM George McCollister
<george.mccollister@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can you explain the difference in behavior with what I was observing
> on the LAN7431?

I'm not using DSA in my application, so I cannot test or replicate
what you were observing. It would be great if we could work together
and settle on a solution that is acceptable to both of us.

> I'll retest but if this is reverted I'm going to start
> seeing 2 extra bytes on the end of frames and it's going to break DSA
> with the LAN7431 again.
>

Seen from my point of view, your patch is a regression. But perhaps my
patch set is a regression for you? Catch 22...

Would you be able to identify which patch broke your DSA behaviour?
Was it one of mine? Perhaps we can start from there.

Sven