Re: [PATCH net v2 2/7] net: dsa: mt7530: fix trapping frames with multiple CPU ports on MT7530

["Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 08:58:33PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> On 13.06.2023 20:39, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 08:30:28PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > > That fixes port 5 on certain variants of the MT7530 switch, as it was
> > > already working on the other variants, which, in conclusion, fixes port 5 on
> > > all MT7530 variants.
> > 
> > Ok. I didn't pay enough attention to the commit message.
> > 
> > > And no, trapping works. Having only CPU port 5 defined on the devicetree
> > > will cause the CPU_PORT bits to be set to port 5. There's only a problem
> > > when multiple CPU ports are defined.
> > 
> > Got it. Then this is really not a problem, and the commit message frames
> > it incorrectly.
> 
> Actually this patch fixes the issue it describes. At the state of this
> patch, when multiple CPU ports are defined, port 5 is the active CPU port,
> CPU_PORT bits are set to port 6.

Maybe it's just me being dumb, but I keep finding things difficult to
understand, such as the above paragraph.

It sounds like you're saying that _before_ this patch, port 5 is the
active CPU port, but the CPU_PORT *FIELD* NOT BITS are set such that
port 6 is the active CPU port. Therefore, things are broken, and this
patch fixes it.

Or are you saying that after this patch is applied, port 5 is the
active CPU port, but the CPU_PORT *FIELD* is set to port 6. If that's
true, then I've no idea what the hell is going on here because it
seems to be senseless.

I think at this point I just give up trying to understand what the
hell these patches are trying to do - in my opinion, the commit
messages are worded attrociously and incomprehensively.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!