b53.rst: is the 5325/5365 "no tagging support" section still accurate? · Christian Melendez <hidden> · 2026-09-11
Re: b53.rst: is the 5325/5365 "no tagging support" section still accurate? · Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@gmail.com> · 2026-09-14
Re: b53.rst: is the 5325/5365 "no tagging support" section still accurate? · Christian Melendez <hidden> · 2026-09-22
Re: b53.rst: is the 5325/5365 "no tagging support" section still accurate? · Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@gmail.com> · 2026-09-22
[PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dsa: b53: fix stale tagging-support section · Christian Melendez <hidden> · 2026-09-22
[PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: add missing entry for b53.rst · Christian Melendez <hidden> · 2026-09-22
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dsa: b53: fix stale tagging-support section · netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org · 2026-09-23
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dsa: b53: fix stale tagging-support section · Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> · 2026-09-26
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dsa: b53: fix stale tagging-support section · patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org · 2026-09-29

Re: b53.rst: is the 5325/5365 "no tagging support" section still accurate?

From: Christian Melendez <hidden>
Date: 2026-09-22 17:48:43
Also in: linux-doc

Hi Jonas,

Thanks for confirming!

Quick follow-up on the "configuration examples look horribly outdated"
part. Once 5325/5365 move to the tagging-supported section, the single
port/bridge/gateway examples further down only apply to 539x/531x5. Were
those outdated specifically for 5325/5365, or wrong in general?

Best regards,
Christian

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help