[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230613172402.grdpgago6in4jogq@skbuf>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:24:02 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
Cc: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>,
Bartel Eerdekens <bartel.eerdekens@...stell8.be>,
mithat.guner@...ont.com, erkin.bozoglu@...ont.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 2/7] net: dsa: mt7530: fix trapping frames with
multiple CPU ports on MT7530
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 08:18:58PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 08:14:35PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > Actually, having only "net: dsa: introduce preferred_default_local_cpu_port
> > and use on MT7530" backported is an enough solution for the current stable
> > kernels.
> >
> > When multiple CPU ports are defined on the devicetree, the CPU_PORT bits
> > will be set to port 6. The active CPU port will also be port 6.
> >
> > This would only become an issue with the changing the DSA conduit support.
> > But that's never going to happen as this patch will always be on the kernels
> > that support changing the DSA conduit.
>
> Aha, ok. I thought that device trees with CPU port 5 exclusively defined
> also exist in the wild. If not, and this patch fixes a theoretical only
> issue, then it is net-next material.
On second thought, compatibility with future device trees is the reason
for this patch set, so that should equally be a reason for keeping this
patch in a "net" series.
If I understand you correctly, port 5 should have worked since commit
c8b8a3c601f2 ("net: dsa: mt7530: permit port 5 to work without port 6 on
MT7621 SoC"), and it did, except for trapping, right?
So how about settling on that as a more modest Fixes: tag, and
explaining clearly in the commit message what's affected?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists