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;
Date:   Tue, 3 Aug 2021 08:36:25 +0200
From:   Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/6] net: dsa: qca: ar9331: make proper
 initial port defaults
Message-ID: <20210803063625.k6it72ny2ikrxjak@pengutronix.de>
References: <20210802131037.32326-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20210802131037.32326-3-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20210802140345.zreovwix6nuyjwjy@skbuf>
 <YQhLSg3Vr1pvVHsW@lunn.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YQhLSg3Vr1pvVHsW@lunn.ch>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 09:45:14PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > +/* AGE_TIME_COEF is not documented. This is "works for me" value */
> > > +#define AR9331_SW_AT_AGE_TIME_COEF		6900
> > 
> > Not documented, not used either, it seems.
> > "Works for you" based on what?
> 
> It is used in a later patch. Ideally it would of been introduced in
> that patch to make this more obvious.

ack, i'll move it from this patch

> > >  #define AR9331_SW_REG_MDIO_CTRL			0x98
> > >  #define AR9331_SW_MDIO_CTRL_BUSY		BIT(31)
> > >  #define AR9331_SW_MDIO_CTRL_MASTER_EN		BIT(30)
> > > @@ -101,6 +111,46 @@
> > >  	 AR9331_SW_PORT_STATUS_RX_FLOW_EN | AR9331_SW_PORT_STATUS_TX_FLOW_EN | \
> > >  	 AR9331_SW_PORT_STATUS_SPEED_M)
> > 
> > Is this patch material for "net"? If standalone ports is all that ar9331
> > supports, then it would better not do packet forwarding in lack of a
> > bridge device.
> 
> It does seem like this patch should be considered for stable, if by
> default all ports can talk with all ports when not part of a bridge.

ack, i'll split this patch set

Regards,
Oleksij
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |