[PATCH-22.03] netifd: bridge: add support option for untagged

[Andrey Jr. Melnikov]

Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic at gmail.com> wrote:
> pt., 9 wrz 2022 o 12:30 Andrey Jr. Melnikov <temnota.am at gmail.com> napisał(a):
> >
> > Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: UTF-8, 86 lines --]
> >
> > > pt., 9 wrz 2022 o 04:32 LiXiong Liu <lxliu at ikuai8.com> napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > > ### swconfig & DSA VLAN Configuration Comparison
> >
> > [....]
> >
> > > > #bridge vlan show
> > > > port              vlan-id
> > > > lan1              100 PVID Egress Untagged
> > > > lan2              100 PVID Egress Untagged
> > > > lan3              1 PVID Egress Untagged
> > > > lan4              1 PVID Egress Untagged
> > > > lan5              1 PVID Egress Untagged
> > > >                   10
> > > > br-lan            1 PVID Egress Untagged
> > > >                   10
> > > >
> >
> > > We are using smth like this:
> >
> > > config bridge-vlan 'vlan1'
> > >     option name 'vlan1'
> > >     option device 'br-lan'
> > >     option vlan '1'
> > >     option flags 'untagged pvid'
> > "untagged pvid" is tautology. PVID stands for "Port VLAN ID" - is a default VLAN ID that is assigned to an access
> > port. Access ports only for untagged (stripped tag) frames. So, drop 'untagged'
> > from options or 'pvid'.
> >

> What in case I would like to have smth like:
> br-lan            1 PVID Egress Untagged
>                   10 Egress Untagged

> bridge vlan <> - tool allow this configuration. Why we should add any
> limitation in UCI?

Problem not in configuration, problem in misleading UCI/tools output - PVID *always* untagged.