Re: [PATCH net-next v7 12/12] net: dsa: add driver for MaxLinear GSW1xx switch family

[Sverdlin, Alexander]

Hi Paolo,

On Thu, 2025-11-06 at 15:38 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > Add driver for the MaxLinear GSW1xx family of Ethernet switch ICs which
> > > are based on the same IP as the Lantiq/Intel GSWIP found in the Lantiq VR9
> > > and Intel GRX MIPS router SoCs. The main difference is that instead of
> > > using memory-mapped I/O to communicate with the host CPU these ICs are
> > > connected via MDIO (or SPI, which isn't supported by this driver).
> > > Implement the regmap API to access the switch registers over MDIO to allow
> > > reusing lantiq_gswip_common for all core functionality.
> > > 
> > > The GSW1xx also comes with a SerDes port capable of 1000Base-X, SGMII and
> > > 2500Base-X, which can either be used to connect an external PHY or SFP
> > > cage, or as the CPU port. Support for the SerDes interface is implemented
> > > in this driver using the phylink_pcs interface.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Golle <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > thank you for the patch!
> > 
> > Finally I was able to run selftest/drivers/net/dsa/local_termination.sh
> > with only 2 unexpected failures on a GSW145 hardware (with TI AM62
> > host CPU and its CPSW (not in switchdev mode) as CPU interface).
> > 
> > The problems I had in the past were neither related to the GSW145 code,
> > nor to am65-cpsw-nuss, but to the test itself:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251104061723.483301-1-alexander.sverdlin@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > The remaining failing test cases are:
> > TEST: VLAN over vlan_filtering=1 bridged port: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address   [FAIL]
> >          reception succeeded, but should have failed
> > TEST: VLAN over vlan_filtering=1 bridged port: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, allmulti   [FAIL]
> >          reception succeeded, but should have failed
> > 
> > So far I didn't notice any problems with untagged read-word IP traffic over
> > GSW145 ports.
> > 
> > Do you have a suggestion what could I check further regarding the failing
> > test cases? As I understood, all of them pass on your side?
> 
> Could be that due to different revisions of the relevant H/W?
> 
> I tend to think we are better off merging the series as-is, and handle
> the above with follow-up, as needed. Any different opinions?

sounds good to me!
Tested-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@xxxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Alexander Sverdlin
Siemens AG
www.siemens.com