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, 13 Jan 2023 13:14:01 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dsa: marvell: Provide per device information
 about max frame size
Message-ID: <20230113111401.hyq7xogfo5tx77e7@skbuf>
References: <20230106101651.1137755-1-lukma@denx.de>
 <Y7gdNlrKkfi2JvQk@lunn.ch>
 <20230113113908.5e92b3a5@wsk>
 <20230113104937.75umsf4avujoxbaq@skbuf>
 <20230113120219.7dc931c1@wsk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230113120219.7dc931c1@wsk>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:02:19PM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:39:08AM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > Are there any more comments, or is this patch set eligible for
> > > pulling into net-next tree?  
> > 
> > How about responding to the comment that was already posted first?
> 
> Could you be more specific?
> 
> 
> On the beginning (first posted version) the patch included 9 patches
> (which included work for ADDR4 for some mv88e6020 setup).
> 
> But after the discussion, I've decided to split this patch set to
> smaller pieces;
> 
> First to add the set_max_frame size with basic definition for mv88e6020
> and mv88e6071 and then follow with more complicated changes (for which
> there is no agreement on how to tackle them).
> 
> For the 'set_max_frame' feature Alexander Dyuck had some comments
> regarding defensive programming approach, but finally he agreed with
> Andrew's approach.
> 
> As of now - the v4 has been Acked by Andrew, so it looks like at least
> this "part" of the work is eligible for upstreaming.
> 
> 
> Or there are any more issues about which I've forgotten ?

Do you agree that for the chip families which neither implement
port_set_jumbo_size() nor set_max_frame_size(), a max MTU of 1492 will
be returned, which currently produces warnings at probe time and should
be fixed first, prior to refactoring the code?
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230106101651.1137755-1-lukma@denx.de/#25149891