diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa2.c b/net/dsa/dsa2.c
index 3d21521453fead..dcad3100b16463 100644
--- a/net/dsa/dsa2.c
+++ b/net/dsa/dsa2.c
@@ -1718,7 +1718,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dsa_unregister_switch);
 void dsa_switch_shutdown(struct dsa_switch *ds)
 {
 	struct net_device *master, *slave_dev;
-	LIST_HEAD(unregister_list);
 	struct dsa_port *dp;
 
 	mutex_lock(&dsa2_mutex);
@@ -1729,25 +1728,13 @@ void dsa_switch_shutdown(struct dsa_switch *ds)
 		slave_dev = dp->slave;
 
 		netdev_upper_dev_unlink(master, slave_dev);
-		/* Just unlinking ourselves as uppers of the master is not
-		 * sufficient. When the master net device unregisters, that will
-		 * also call dev_close, which we will catch as NETDEV_GOING_DOWN
-		 * and trigger a dev_close on our own devices (dsa_slave_close).
-		 * In turn, that will call dev_mc_unsync on the master's net
-		 * device. If the master is also a DSA switch port, this will
-		 * trigger dsa_slave_set_rx_mode which will call dev_mc_sync on
-		 * its own master. Lockdep will complain about the fact that
-		 * all cascaded masters have the same dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key,
-		 * which it normally would not do if the cascaded masters would
-		 * be in a proper upper/lower relationship, which we've just
-		 * destroyed.
-		 * To suppress the lockdep warnings, let's actually unregister
-		 * the DSA slave interfaces too, to avoid the nonsensical
-		 * multicast address list synchronization on shutdown.
-		 */
-		unregister_netdevice_queue(slave_dev, &unregister_list);
 	}
-	unregister_netdevice_many(&unregister_list);
+
+	/* Disconnect from further netdevice notifiers on the master,
+	 * since netdev_uses_dsa() will now return false.
+	 */
+	dsa_switch_for_each_cpu_port(dp, ds)
+		dp->master->dsa_ptr = NULL;
 
 	rtnl_unlock();
 	mutex_unlock(&dsa2_mutex);