Re: [PATCH net v2] net: dsa: tag_rtl4_a: Bump min packet size

[Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca]

Em ter., 31 de out. de 2023 às 16:27, Linus Walleij
<linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 8:18 PM Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
> <luizluca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > I don't have any other RTL8366RB systems than the D-Link DIR-685.
> > >
> > > I however have several systems with the same backing ethernet controller
> > > connected directly to a PHY and they all work fine.
> >
> > Hi Linus,
> >
> > I ported TL-WR1043nd to DSA using RTL8366RB on OpenWrt main. Do you
> > need some help testing the switch?
>
> Yes!
>
> > I just need to test ping with different sizes?
>
> Yes try to ping the host from the router:
>
> ping -s 1472 192.168.1.1 or so to send a 1500 byte ping packet,
> which will be padded up to a 1518 byte ethernet frame and
> 1522 bytes from the conduit interface.
>
> Then if it doesn't work, see if this patch solves the issue!

Hi Linus,

Sorry but I noticed no issues:

>From the router:

No. Time Source Destination Protocol Length Info
1 0.000000000 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 ICMP 1514 Echo (ping) request
id=0x0789, seq=23/5888, ttl=64 (reply in 2)
2 0.000040094 192.168.1.2 192.168.1.1 ICMP 1514 Echo (ping) reply
id=0x0789, seq=23/5888, ttl=64 (request in 1)
5 1.000361559 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 ICMP 1514 Echo (ping) request
id=0x0789, seq=24/6144, ttl=64 (reply in 6)
6 1.000439668 192.168.1.2 192.168.1.1 ICMP 1514 Echo (ping) reply
id=0x0789, seq=24/6144, ttl=64 (request in 5)

>From the host:

No. Time Source Destination Protocol Length Info
1 0.000000000 192.168.1.2 192.168.1.1 ICMP 1514 Echo (ping) request
id=0x0002, seq=8/2048, ttl=64 (reply in 2)
2 0.000391800 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 ICMP 1514 Echo (ping) reply
id=0x0002, seq=8/2048, ttl=64 (request in 1)
3 1.024825212 192.168.1.2 192.168.1.1 ICMP 1514 Echo (ping) request
id=0x0002, seq=9/2304, ttl=64 (reply in 4)
4 1.026865170 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 ICMP 1514 Echo (ping) reply
id=0x0002, seq=9/2304, ttl=64 (request in 3)

If I go over that limit, it fragments the packet as expected.

My device is using
https://github.com/luizluca/openwrt/tree/ath79_dsa_prep%2Bdevices . In
summary, kernel 6.1 with openwrt generic patches and the
reset-controller patch I sent net-next recently.

[    3.888540] realtek-smi switch: found an RTL8366RB switch
[    3.952366] realtek-smi switch: RTL5937 ver 3 chip found
[    3.967086] realtek-smi switch: set MAC: 42:E4:F5:XX:XX:XX
[    3.976779] realtek-smi switch: missing child interrupt-controller node
[    3.983455] realtek-smi switch: no interrupt support
[    4.158891] realtek-smi switch: no LED for port 5
[    4.164130] realtek-smi switch: configuring for fixed/rgmii link mode
[    4.171178] realtek-smi switch wan (uninitialized): PHY [SMI-0:00]
driver [RTL8366RB Gigabit Ethernet] (irq=POLL)
[    4.183849] realtek-smi switch lan1 (uninitialized): PHY [SMI-0:01]
driver [RTL8366RB Gigabit Ethernet] (irq=POLL)
[    4.196439] realtek-smi switch lan2 (uninitialized): PHY [SMI-0:02]
driver [RTL8366RB Gigabit Ethernet] (irq=POLL)
[    4.209258] realtek-smi switch lan3 (uninitialized): PHY [SMI-0:03]
driver [RTL8366RB Gigabit Ethernet] (irq=POLL)
[    4.221815] realtek-smi switch lan4 (uninitialized): PHY [SMI-0:04]
driver [RTL8366RB Gigabit Ethernet] (irq=POLL)
[    4.243071] realtek-smi switch: Link is Up - 1Gbps/Full - flow control off
[    9.707171] realtek-smi switch lan1: configuring for phy/gmii link mode
[    9.727707] realtek-smi switch lan1: Link is Up - 1Gbps/Full - flow
control rx/tx
[   12.289349] realtek-smi switch lan1: Link is Down
[   55.761797] realtek-smi switch lan1: configuring for phy/gmii link mode
[   57.460421] realtek-smi switch lan2: configuring for phy/gmii link mode
[   57.505039] realtek-smi switch lan3: configuring for phy/gmii link mode
[   57.823528] realtek-smi switch lan4: configuring for phy/gmii link mode
[   58.000712] realtek-smi switch lan1: Link is Up - 1Gbps/Full - flow
control rx/tx
[   58.181047] realtek-smi switch wan: configuring for phy/gmii link mode

Maybe the ag71xx driver is doing something differently.

Let me know if you need to test anything else. I didn't test the
device with your patch applied.

Regards,

Luiz