Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 13:58:02 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@microchip.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        kernel@pengutronix.de, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/1] net: dsa: microchip: ksz9477: implement
 MTU configuration
Message-ID: <20220225115802.bvjd54cwwk6hjyfa@skbuf>
References: <20220223084055.2719969-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20220223233833.mjknw5ko7hpxj3go@skbuf>
 <20220224045936.GB4594@pengutronix.de>
 <20220224093329.hssghouq7hmgxvwb@skbuf>
 <20220224093827.GC4594@pengutronix.de>
 <20220224094657.jzhvi67ryhuipor4@skbuf>
 <20220225114740.GA27407@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220225114740.GA27407@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 12:47:40PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>  
> > So where is it failing exactly? Here I guess, because mtu_limit will be
> > negative?
> > 
> > 	mtu_limit = min_t(int, master->max_mtu, dev->max_mtu);
> > 	old_master_mtu = master->mtu;
> > 	new_master_mtu = largest_mtu + dsa_tag_protocol_overhead(cpu_dp->tag_ops);
> > 	if (new_master_mtu > mtu_limit)
> > 		return -ERANGE;
> > 
> > I don't think we can work around it in DSA, it's garbage in, garbage out.
> > 
> > In principle, I don't have such a big issue with writing the MTU
> > register as part of the switch initialization, especially if it's global
> > and not per port. But tell me something else. You pre-program the MTU
> > with VLAN_ETH_FRAME_LEN + ETH_FCS_LEN, but in the MTU change procedure,
> > you also add KSZ9477_INGRESS_TAG_LEN (2) to that. Is that needed at all?
> > I expect that if it's needed, it's needed in both places. Can you
> > sustain an iperf3 tcp session over a VLAN upper of a ksz9477 port?
> > I suspect that the missing VLAN_HLEN is masking a lack of KSZ9477_INGRESS_TAG_LEN.
> 
> Hm... I assume I need to do something like this:
> - build kernel with BRIDGE_VLAN_FILTERING
> - |
>   ip l a name br0 type bridge vlan_filtering 1
>   ip l s dev br0 up
>   ip l s lan1 master br0
>   ip l s dev lan1 up
>   bridge vlan add dev lan1 vid 5 pvid untagged
>   ip link add link br0 name vlan5 type vlan id 5
> 
> I use lan5@ksz for net boot. As soon as i link lan1@ksz to the br0 with
> vlan_filtering enabled, the nfs on lan5 will be broken. Currently I have
> no time to investigate it. I'll try to fix VLAN support in a separate
> task. What will is acceptable way to proceed with MTU patch?

No bridge, why create a bridge? And even if you do, why add lan5 to it?
The expectation is that standalone ports still remain functional when
other ports join a bridge.

I was saying:

ip link set lan1 up
ip link add link lan1 name lan1.5 type vlan id 5
ip addr add 192.168.100.1/24 dev lan1.5 && ip link set lan1.5 up
iperf3 -c 192.168.100.2