All of
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Fainelli <>
To: Vladimir Oltean <>
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Jakub Kicinski <>,
	Murali Krishna Policharla <>,
	Vladimir Oltean <>,
	open list <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: systemport: set dev->max_mtu to UMAC_MAX_MTU_SIZE
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 13:49:03 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 12/18/2020 1:17 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>>>> SYSTEMPORT Lite does not actually validate the frame length, so setting
>>>>>>> a maximum number to the buffer size we allocate could work, but I don't
>>>>>>> see a reason to differentiate the two types of MACs here.
>>>>>> And if the Lite doesn't validate the frame length, then shouldn't it
>>>>>> report a max_mtu equal to the max_mtu of the attached DSA switch, plus
>>>>>> the Broadcom tag length? Doesn't the b53 driver support jumbo frames?
>>>>> And how would I do that without create a horrible layering violation in
>>>>> either the systemport driver or DSA? Yes the b53 driver supports jumbo
>>>>> frames.
>>>> Sorry, I don't understand where is the layering violation (maybe it doesn't
>>>> help me either that I'm not familiar with Broadcom architectures).
>>>> Is the SYSTEMPORT Lite always used as a DSA master, or could it also be
>>>> used standalone? What would be the issue with hardcoding a max_mtu value
>>>> which is large enough for b53 to use jumbo frames?
>>> SYSTEMPORT Lite is always used as a DSA master AFAICT given its GMII
>>> Integration Block (GIB) was specifically designed with another MAC and
>>> particularly that of a switch on the other side.
>>> The layering violation I am concerned with is that we do not know ahead
>>> of time which b53 switch we are going to be interfaced with, and they
>>> have various limitations on the sizes they support. Right now b53 only
>>> concerns itself with returning JMS_MAX_SIZE, but I am fairly positive
>>> this needs fixing given the existing switches supported by the driver.
>> Maybe we don't need to over-engineer this. As long as you report a large
>> enough max_mtu in the SYSTEMPORT Lite driver to accomodate for all
>> possible revisions of embedded switches, and the max_mtu of the switch
>> itself is still accurate and representative of the switch revision limits,
>> I think that's good enough.
> I suppose that is fair, v2 coming, thanks!

I was going to issue a v2 for this patch, but given that we don't
allocate buffers larger than 2KiB and there is really no need to
implement ndo_change_mtu(), is there really a point not to use
UMAC_MAX_MTU_SIZE for both variants of the SYSTEMPORT MAC?

  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-21 21:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-18 17:38 Florian Fainelli
2020-12-18 20:24 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-12-18 20:30   ` Florian Fainelli
2020-12-18 20:52     ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-12-18 20:54       ` Florian Fainelli
2020-12-18 21:02         ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-12-18 21:08           ` Florian Fainelli
2020-12-18 21:14             ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-12-18 21:17               ` Florian Fainelli
2020-12-21 21:49                 ` Florian Fainelli [this message]
2020-12-21 22:25                   ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-12-21 22:55                     ` Florian Fainelli

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH net] net: systemport: set dev->max_mtu to UMAC_MAX_MTU_SIZE' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.