On 4.02.2023 14:43, Frank Wunderlich wrote:
Gesendet: Samstag, 04. Februar 2023 um 11:27 Uhr
Von: "Frank Wunderlich" <frank-w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
An: "Arınç ÜNAL" <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: arinc9.unal@xxxxxxxxx, "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Matthias Brugger" <matthias.bgg@xxxxxxxxx>, devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mediatek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, erkin.bozoglu@xxxxxxxxxx, "Sean Wang" <sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "DENG Qingfang" <dqfext@xxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: Aw: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] arm: dts: mt7623: mux phy0 on Bananapi BPI-R2
Hi aranc,
have tested this series, basicly it works, but i get only ~620 Mbits/sec (much more i will need on wan) in tx-mode of r2, rx-mode (iperf3 -c IP -R on r2) gets full 939 Mbits/sec. Both no retransmitts.
tried with my laptop which gets 940Mbit/sec in tx mode too...other end is a R2 with 5.15 connected to lan0 (and eth1+aux enabled, dmesg clean so far...for the "kernel log flooded"-comment).
maybe gmac1 needs to be tweaked a bit (clock-settings)?
can you confirm this with your board?
tested the vlan_aware way with 5.15.80 and got better result
ip link add br0 type bridge vlan_filtering 1
ip l set aux master br0
ip l set wan master br0
bridge vlan add vid 99 dev wan
bridge vlan add vid 99 dev aux
bridge vlan
ip l s eth1 up
ip l s wan up
ip a a 192.168.0.11/24 dev eth1
ip l s br0 up
ip l s aux up
i see traffic on eth1 increasing and iperf3 shows in both directions ~940Mbit/s, no strange mesages in dmesg while testing...where do you see these?
You didn't put eth1 on a bridge. I suggest you read my mails with higher
attention so both of our time is spent efficiently.
tested vlan-way with 6.2 and felix' Patches to more comparable with your test...and got same result (~625Mbit/s in tx and 940Mbit/s in rx-mode=-R on r2)...so it seems anything between 5.15 and 6.2 reduced gmac1 tx bandwidth.
I don't see an incentive to investigate unless the issue is confirmed on
a daily netdev/net-next.git main tree.
to summarize:
i get same result with your patches and my old vlan_bridge way with same codebase...how do i see your problem with the vlan-bridge-way? Do you test with bpi-r2 or only any other board and change r2 to have same DT?
I tested this only on a Bananapi BPI-R2 using the devicetree with this
series applied on a few days old netdev/net-next.git main tree.
Arınç
