From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sendmail.purelymail.com (sendmail.purelymail.com [34.202.193.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FAE031DD97 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2026 13:13:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772370829; cv=none; b=HxqSJ78EC+FFNiKJ4/VM6mU5vPtoA1X4WG/K5HWi7bRww9KXD40mkOG01EoSTDuj+laIfjPoGKCZ7dHV/ZQ6iqtASWJUOGPrNkY634W4PZfLxy/79Xa5aO0aSokHlzyBuXfufPfxveaiaEBXEngwY5Rr3c+HygrY9TsALAoRYj4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772370829; c=relaxed/simple; bh=onrirJo6ydCcYll7DRFQH980eTfE0dFqfteq+y/Q7Ns=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=RqpTirs9NJAM/dlpclW+LPPv0JQlwXDMmcIMZxbZ2yxNCi4eGKvhP+vmBY6InVdqWJPmQ4G3W/IP7tkmvXwFFBbHISJYmazEZO1tGCPH2sgGFr7HrW08CJEejL5cjaA/SxKLFDpbvKaeNMnHylapPvEdAIUrOi625ibXqsrhGDo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=tinyisr.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tinyisr.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tinyisr.com header.i=@tinyisr.com header.b=l7AFNGy4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b=Id1qQbJP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=tinyisr.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tinyisr.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tinyisr.com header.i=@tinyisr.com header.b="l7AFNGy4"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b="Id1qQbJP" DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=l7AFNGy4IEwW2WASA8umQzD/AlXwX3SIi/6TyLTXSarUsQnOWFipKhfRmVzPEuaDcPgYMo7IeY9sH31uuQlb+GXgt+d1mZhRpFbG1LMdBOZCaif3VfN2dB0U1RRj4TdTaG0v1Gh5umNkZ/x9DQ1OdoTL/yGS6P6wtO2m2UisYXZDRXUV3enOEINBPzaRxEEwpcfjiKiM4429vCGO0fZWbo+taJPlAuRjJn1tvkBXKRzZozwZ21LrZct9/ScG7HewxxDjfXCLnTYAe7mdpDfQa9PEYK7uQUxZb2c2xfemvOvLaN8UeYpslkQAgVGrL6x3dY1Zn0x+m4kc1laM65qtVg==; s=purelymail3; d=tinyisr.com; v=1; bh=onrirJo6ydCcYll7DRFQH980eTfE0dFqfteq+y/Q7Ns=; h=Received:Date:From:To:Subject; DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=Id1qQbJPHXTlOtEWJ+dn8S1Zy28x+59rtr2toB26nOoRPJoN90v3oTnRf3WwvLqokULlZ98D3Q6jTgMjLFCW2E9FBkDut2c/kgQL9f292SwsL2uyKdDxZlWeB3eVO/2WYAEKpv+57iS4dCs+99Q17seek2U/5CTzLchdqmJkfAt1d9Y/DqesfhdCheJq5ok3tij1qTXGPNL0qSrI6iBE/ytWGpooeGOVsaxdFYRsXMRkY6TUeWuMI876o8355NL6SQzRc/Fcxsw33jgo4LD2J9jD3Ow2xDAjf1MbFww+97aS3kwRlEjbLLTzfw+doFXI/m1mBILz1Vl5iV0yfY8F/Q==; s=purelymail3; d=purelymail.com; v=1; bh=onrirJo6ydCcYll7DRFQH980eTfE0dFqfteq+y/Q7Ns=; h=Feedback-ID:Received:Date:From:To:Subject; Feedback-ID: 99681:12517:null:purelymail X-Pm-Original-To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.purelymail.com (Purelymail SMTP) with ESMTPSA id 1817600932; (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Sun, 01 Mar 2026 13:13:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2026 15:13:28 +0200 From: Joris =?utf-8?B?VmFpxaF2aWxh?= To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: Daniel Golle , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2 net-next] net: dsa: MT7628 embedded switch initial support Message-ID: References: <20260228185242.800836-1-joey@tinyisr.com> <20260228234031.bimzpo4mmu6t5rty@skbuf> <20260301123619.skschp4ioxnevh3u@skbuf> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260301123619.skschp4ioxnevh3u@skbuf> Hi Vladimir, Thank you for the feedback. On Sun, Mar 01, 2026 at 02:36:19PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > I see a slight discrepancy between what the documentation claims the > hardware does, and what the driver claims it does. The documentation > seems to say that setting this bit is what allows the vlan->untag bits > to take effect. The comment was referencing an accidentally deleted line that enables double tagging: /* set up switch for double tagging to simulate vlan unawareness */ regmap_set_bits(esw->regmap, MT7628_ESW_REG_SGC2, FIELD_PREP(MT7628_ESW_SGC2_DOUBLE_TAG_EN, MT7628_ESW_PORTS_NOCPU)); I only re-tested untagged traffic before sending this in. Apologies for that. I will expand my testing procedures to prevent this from happening again. > A VLAN-unaware port means that when an ingress packet comes with 802.1Q > TPID 0x8100 and VID X from the wire, this VLAN header will be ignored by > the switch, and the PVID of the port will be pushed as an outer tag, for > any value of X, regardless of whether it is in the VLAN table or not. > Does it do that? That is what is intended to happen and it does do that if the DOUBLE_TAG_EN is properly set. Will be fixed in later revisions.