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 18:35:43 +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: <20220225163543.vnqlkltgmwf4vlmm@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>
 <20220225115802.bvjd54cwwk6hjyfa@skbuf>
 <20220225125430.GB27407@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220225125430.GB27407@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 01:54:30PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> No, lan5 is not added to the bridge, but stops functioning after creating
> br with lan1 or any other lanX

Please take time to investigate the problem and fix it.

> > I was saying:
> > 
> > ip link set lan1 up
> > ip link add link lan1 name lan1.5 type vlan id 5
> > ip addr add 172.17.0.2/24 dev lan1.5 && ip link set lan1.5 up
> > iperf3 -c 172.17.0.10
> 
> It works.

This is akin to saying that without any calls to ksz9477_change_mtu(),
just writing VLAN_ETH_FRAME_LEN + ETH_FCS_LEN into REG_SW_MTU__2 is
sufficient to get VLAN-tagged MTU-sized packets to pass through the CPU
port and the lan1 user port.

So my question is: is this necessary?

	if (dsa_is_cpu_port(ds, port))
		new_mtu += KSZ9477_INGRESS_TAG_LEN;