All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Guedes, Andre <andre.guedes@intel.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next] igb: Clarify idleslope config constraints
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 22:40:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1510353629.3543.3.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171110222150.17754-1-jesus.sanchez-palencia@intel.com>

Reviewed-by:?Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@intel.com>

On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 14:21 -0800, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
> By design, the idleslope increments are restricted to 16.384kbps steps.
> Add a comment to igb_main.c making that explicit and add one example
> that illustrates the impact of that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@intel.com>
> ---
> ?drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> ?1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> index 43cf39527660..d56c998f3f14 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> @@ -1744,6 +1744,20 @@ static void igb_configure_cbs(struct igb_adapter
> *adapter, int queue,
> ?		?*?????value = idleSlope * 61034
> ?		?*?????????????--------------
> ---??????????????????????????(E6)
> ?		?*??????????????????1000000
> +		?*
> +		?* NOTE: For i210, given the above, we can see that
> idleslope
> +		?*???????is represented in 16.38431 kbps units by the value
> at
> +		?*???????the TQAVCC register (1Gbps / 61034), which reduces
> +		?*???????the granularity for idleslope increments.
> +		?*???????For instance, if you want to configure a 2576kbps
> +		?*???????idleslope, the value to be written on the register
> +		?*???????would have to be 157.23. If rounded down, you end
> +		?*???????up with less bandwidth available than originally
> +		?*???????required (~2572 kbps). If rounded up, you end up
> +		?*???????with a higher bandwidth (~2589 kbps). Below the
> +		?*???????approach we take is to always round up the
> +		?*???????calculated value, so the resulting bandwidth might
> +		?*???????be slightly higher for some configurations.
> ?		?*/
> ?		value = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(idleslope * 61034ULL, 1000000);
> ?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3262 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/attachments/20171110/bf3b55bd/attachment-0001.bin>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-10 22:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-10 22:21 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next] igb: Clarify idleslope config constraints Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2017-11-10 22:40 ` Guedes, Andre [this message]
2017-11-29  4:07 ` Brown, Aaron F

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1510353629.3543.3.camel@intel.com \
    --to=andre.guedes@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.