[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230116105148.230ef4ae@wsk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:51:48 +0100
From: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dsa: marvell: Provide per device information
about max frame size
Hi Russell,
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 11:16:49AM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > Different Marvell DSA switches support different size of max frame
> > bytes to be sent. This value corresponds to the memory allocated
> > in switch to store single frame.
> >
> > For example mv88e6185 supports max 1632 bytes, which is now
> > in-driver standard value. On the other hand - mv88e6250 supports
> > 2048 bytes. To be more interresting - devices supporting jumbo
> > frames - use yet another value (10240 bytes)
> >
> > As this value is internal and may be different for each switch IC,
> > new entry in struct mv88e6xxx_info has been added to store it.
> >
> > This commit doesn't change the code functionality - it just provides
> > the max frame size value explicitly - up till now it has been
> > assigned depending on the callback provided by the IC driver
> > (e.g. .set_max_frame_size, .port_set_jumbo_size).
>
> I don't think this patch is correct.
>
> One of the things that mv88e6xxx_setup_port() does when initialising
> each port is:
>
> if (chip->info->ops->port_set_jumbo_size) {
> err = chip->info->ops->port_set_jumbo_size(chip,
> port, 10218); if (err)
> return err;
> }
>
> There is one implementation of this, which is
> mv88e6165_port_set_jumbo_size() and that has the effect of setting
> port register 8 to the largest size. So any chip that supports the
> port_set_jumbo_size() method will be programmed on initialisation to
> support this larger size.
>
> However, you seem to be listing e.g. the 88e6190 (if I'm interpreting
> the horrid mv88e6xxx_table changes correctly)
Those changes were requested by the community. Previous versions of
this patch were just changing things to allow correct operation of the
switch ICs on which I do work (i.e. 88e6020 and 88e6071).
And yes, for 88e6190 the max_frame_size = 10240, but (by mistake) the
same value was not updated for 88e6190X.
The question is - how shall I proceed?
After the discussion about this code - it looks like approach from v3
[1] seems to be the most non-intrusive for other ICs.
> as having a maximum
> frame size of 1522, but it implements this method, supports 10240, and
> thus is programmed to support frames of that size rather than 1522.
>
Links:
[1] - https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Y7M+mWMU+DJPYubp@lunn.ch/T/
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Erika Unter
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@...x.de
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists