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:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 19:51:23 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     =?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgTMOpZ2Vy?= <clement.leger@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>,
        =?utf-8?Q?Miqu=C3=A8l?= Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Milan Stevanovic <milan.stevanovic@se.com>,
        Jimmy Lalande <jimmy.lalande@se.com>,
        Pascal Eberhard <pascal.eberhard@se.com>,
        Alexis =?utf-8?Q?Lothor=C3=A9?= <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: dsa: rzn1-a5psw: enable DPBU for CPU
 port and fix STP states
Message-ID: <20230330165123.4n2bmvuaixfz34tb@skbuf>
References: <20230330083408.63136-1-clement.leger@bootlin.com>
 <20230330083408.63136-1-clement.leger@bootlin.com>
 <20230330083408.63136-2-clement.leger@bootlin.com>
 <20230330083408.63136-2-clement.leger@bootlin.com>
 <20230330151653.atzd5ptacral6syx@skbuf>
 <20230330174427.0310276a@fixe.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230330174427.0310276a@fixe.home>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 05:44:27PM +0200, Cl?ment L?ger wrote:
> Le Thu, 30 Mar 2023 18:16:53 +0300,
> Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> a ?crit :
> 
> > Have you considered adding some Fixes: tags and sending to the "net" tree?
> 
> I wasn't sure if due to the refactoring that should go directly to the
> net tree but I'll do that. But since they are fixes, that's the way to
> go.

My common sense says that code quality comes first, and so, the code
looks however it needs to look, keeping in mind that it still needs to
be a punctual fix for the problem. This doesn't change the fact that
it's a fix for an an observable bug, and so, it's a candidate for 'net'.

That's just my opinion though, others may disagree.

> > To be absolutely clear, when talking about BPDUs, is it applicable
> > effectively only to STP protocol frames, or to any management traffic
> > sent by tag_rzn1_a5psw.c which has A5PSW_CTRL_DATA_FORCE_FORWARD set?
> 
> The documentation uses BPDUs but this is to be understood as in a
> broader sense for "management frames" since it matches all the MAC with
> "01-80-c2-00-00-XX". 

And even so, is it just for frames sent to "01-80-c2-00-00-XX", or for
all frames sent with A5PSW_CTRL_DATA_FORCE_FORWARD? Other switch
families can inject whatever they want into ports that are in the
BLOCKING STP state.