am335x: d_can: rx issue

am335x: d_can: rx issue

[Yegor Yefremov]

I'm testing 3.15.0-rc3-00006-gd497c20-dirty with latest commit:

Merge tag 'linux-can-fixes-for-3.15-20140401' of
git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can

    linux-can-fixes-for-3.15-20140401

    Marc Kleine-Budde says:

    ====================
    this is a pull request of 16 patches for the 3.15 release cycle.

    Bjorn Van Tilt contributes a patch which fixes a memory leak in usb_8dev's
    usb_8dev_start_xmit()s error path. A patch by Robert Schwebel
fixes a typo in
    the can documentation. The remaining patches all target the c_can
driver. Two
    of them are by me; they add a missing netif_napi_del() and return value
    checking. Thomas Gleixner contributes 12 patches, which address several
    shortcomings in the driver like hardware initialisation,
concurrency, message
    ordering and poor performance.
    ====================

TX is working, but rx not. Am I missing any patches, that fix this issue?

Yegor

Re: am335x: d_can: rx issue

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
> I'm testing 3.15.0-rc3-00006-gd497c20-dirty with latest commit:
> 
> Merge tag 'linux-can-fixes-for-3.15-20140401' of
> git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
> 
>     linux-can-fixes-for-3.15-20140401
> 
>     Marc Kleine-Budde says:
> 
>     ====================
>     this is a pull request of 16 patches for the 3.15 release cycle.
> 
>     Bjorn Van Tilt contributes a patch which fixes a memory leak in usb_8dev's
>     usb_8dev_start_xmit()s error path. A patch by Robert Schwebel
> fixes a typo in
>     the can documentation. The remaining patches all target the c_can
> driver. Two
>     of them are by me; they add a missing netif_napi_del() and return value
>     checking. Thomas Gleixner contributes 12 patches, which address several
>     shortcomings in the driver like hardware initialisation,
> concurrency, message
>     ordering and poor performance.
>     ====================
> 
> TX is working, but rx not. Am I missing any patches, that fix this issue?

I bet, TX is not working either. You probably fall over the issue with
the startup logic.

Does the following patch fix your issue?

    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342518/

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: am335x: d_can: rx issue

[Yegor Yefremov]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
>> I'm testing 3.15.0-rc3-00006-gd497c20-dirty with latest commit:
>>
>> Merge tag 'linux-can-fixes-for-3.15-20140401' of
>> git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
>>
>>     linux-can-fixes-for-3.15-20140401
>>
>>     Marc Kleine-Budde says:
>>
>>     ====================
>>     this is a pull request of 16 patches for the 3.15 release cycle.
>>
>>     Bjorn Van Tilt contributes a patch which fixes a memory leak in usb_8dev's
>>     usb_8dev_start_xmit()s error path. A patch by Robert Schwebel
>> fixes a typo in
>>     the can documentation. The remaining patches all target the c_can
>> driver. Two
>>     of them are by me; they add a missing netif_napi_del() and return value
>>     checking. Thomas Gleixner contributes 12 patches, which address several
>>     shortcomings in the driver like hardware initialisation,
>> concurrency, message
>>     ordering and poor performance.
>>     ====================
>>
>> TX is working, but rx not. Am I missing any patches, that fix this issue?
>
> I bet, TX is not working either. You probably fall over the issue with
> the startup logic.
>
> Does the following patch fix your issue?
>
>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342518/

Yes, it does.

Thanks.

Are these patches going to hit 3.15-rc4?

Yegor

Re: am335x: d_can: rx issue

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
> >> I'm testing 3.15.0-rc3-00006-gd497c20-dirty with latest commit:
> >>
> >> Merge tag 'linux-can-fixes-for-3.15-20140401' of
> >> git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
> >>
> >>     linux-can-fixes-for-3.15-20140401
> >>
> >>     Marc Kleine-Budde says:
> >>
> >>     ====================
> >>     this is a pull request of 16 patches for the 3.15 release cycle.
> >>
> >>     Bjorn Van Tilt contributes a patch which fixes a memory leak in usb_8dev's
> >>     usb_8dev_start_xmit()s error path. A patch by Robert Schwebel
> >> fixes a typo in
> >>     the can documentation. The remaining patches all target the c_can
> >> driver. Two
> >>     of them are by me; they add a missing netif_napi_del() and return value
> >>     checking. Thomas Gleixner contributes 12 patches, which address several
> >>     shortcomings in the driver like hardware initialisation,
> >> concurrency, message
> >>     ordering and poor performance.
> >>     ====================
> >>
> >> TX is working, but rx not. Am I missing any patches, that fix this issue?
> >
> > I bet, TX is not working either. You probably fall over the issue with
> > the startup logic.
> >
> > Does the following patch fix your issue?
> >
> >     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342518/
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Are these patches going to hit 3.15-rc4?

Marc, can you expedite that one for 3.15 please?

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: am335x: d_can: rx issue

[Oliver Hartkopp]

On 29.04.2014 11:03, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Yegor Yefremov wrote:

>>>> TX is working, but rx not. Am I missing any patches, that fix this issue?
>>>
>>> I bet, TX is not working either. You probably fall over the issue with
>>> the startup logic.
>>>
>>> Does the following patch fix your issue?
>>>
>>>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342518/
>>
>> Yes, it does.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Are these patches going to hit 3.15-rc4?
> 
> Marc, can you expedite that one for 3.15 please?
> 

Hi Thomas,

Marc is out of office until May 5th.
See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=139855189427393&w=2

But this requested patch has already been pulled into Dave Millers net-tree:

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id=bed11db3d4095e5f818f5e8bf7f43ef2beb36d4e

So it will hit mainline with the next pull request from Dave to Linus.
3.15-rc4 looks therefore really feasible :-)

Btw. I'm currently running Daves net-tree here and was forced to define 
CONFIG_CAN_C_CAN_STRICT_FRAME_ORDERING during 'make oldconfig' ...

Can this Kconfig option probably be removed in the 3.15-rc phase when
it's not really needed anymore?

See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=139746476821294&w=2

Regards,
Oliver

Re: am335x: d_can: rx issue

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 29.04.2014 11:03, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Marc, can you expedite that one for 3.15 please?
> > 
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Marc is out of office until May 5th.
> See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=139855189427393&w=2
> 
> But this requested patch has already been pulled into Dave Millers net-tree:
> 
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id=bed11db3d4095e5f818f5e8bf7f43ef2beb36d4e
> 
> So it will hit mainline with the next pull request from Dave to Linus.
> 3.15-rc4 looks therefore really feasible :-)

Thanks for the update !
 
> Btw. I'm currently running Daves net-tree here and was forced to define 
> CONFIG_CAN_C_CAN_STRICT_FRAME_ORDERING during 'make oldconfig' ...
> 
> Can this Kconfig option probably be removed in the 3.15-rc phase when
> it's not really needed anymore?
> 
> See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=139746476821294&w=2

If it's not necessary for any of the C/DCAN incarnations we can
probably drop it and rip the code out.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: am335x: d_can: rx issue

[Oliver Hartkopp]

On 29.04.2014 19:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

>> Btw. I'm currently running Daves net-tree here and was forced to define 
>> CONFIG_CAN_C_CAN_STRICT_FRAME_ORDERING during 'make oldconfig' ...
>>
>> Can this Kconfig option probably be removed in the 3.15-rc phase when
>> it's not really needed anymore?
>>
>> See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=139746476821294&w=2
> 
> If it's not necessary for any of the C/DCAN incarnations we can
> probably drop it and rip the code out.

Hm. I don't know. AFAIK only Alexander and you detected and discussed the
frame re-ordering issue of the C_CAN in length.

I put Alexander in CC. When you both don't have any objections it's up to your
opinion to remove this (hopefully) obsolete option.

Best regards,
Oliver

Re: am335x: d_can: rx issue

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 29.04.2014 19:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> 
> >> Btw. I'm currently running Daves net-tree here and was forced to define 
> >> CONFIG_CAN_C_CAN_STRICT_FRAME_ORDERING during 'make oldconfig' ...
> >>
> >> Can this Kconfig option probably be removed in the 3.15-rc phase when
> >> it's not really needed anymore?
> >>
> >> See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=139746476821294&w=2
> > 
> > If it's not necessary for any of the C/DCAN incarnations we can
> > probably drop it and rip the code out.
> 
> Hm. I don't know. AFAIK only Alexander and you detected and discussed the
> frame re-ordering issue of the C_CAN in length.
> 
> I put Alexander in CC. When you both don't have any objections it's up to your
> opinion to remove this (hopefully) obsolete option.

It's possible in theory and you can "enforce" it by injecting
artificial delays, but I doubt it's a real world issue.

Fine with me to remove it along with the accompanying code cruft.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: am335x: d_can: rx issue

[Alexander Stein]

On Tuesday 29 April 2014 19:50:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> > On 29.04.2014 19:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> > 
> > >> Btw. I'm currently running Daves net-tree here and was forced to define 
> > >> CONFIG_CAN_C_CAN_STRICT_FRAME_ORDERING during 'make oldconfig' ...
> > >>
> > >> Can this Kconfig option probably be removed in the 3.15-rc phase when
> > >> it's not really needed anymore?
> > >>
> > >> See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=139746476821294&w=2
> > > 
> > > If it's not necessary for any of the C/DCAN incarnations we can
> > > probably drop it and rip the code out.
> > 
> > Hm. I don't know. AFAIK only Alexander and you detected and discussed the
> > frame re-ordering issue of the C_CAN in length.
> > 
> > I put Alexander in CC. When you both don't have any objections it's up to your
> > opinion to remove this (hopefully) obsolete option.
> 
> It's possible in theory and you can "enforce" it by injecting
> artificial delays, but I doubt it's a real world issue.
> 
> Fine with me to remove it along with the accompanying code cruft.

I dont have any objections too removing it.

Regards,
Alexander
-- 
Dipl.-Inf. Alexander Stein

SYS TEC electronic GmbH
Am Windrad 2
08468 Heinsdorfergrund
Tel.: 03765 38600-1156
Fax: 03765 38600-4100
Email: alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com
Website: www.systec-electronic.com
 
Managing Director: Dipl.-Phys. Siegmar Schmidt
Commercial registry: Amtsgericht Chemnitz, HRB 28082