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.