Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 1/2] igc: Limit netdev_tc calls to MQPRIO

[Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1446 bytes --]

On Mon Apr 07 2025, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 02:52:38PM +0100, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
>> Limit netdev_tc calls to MQPRIO. Currently these calls are made in
>> igc_tsn_enable_offload() and igc_tsn_disable_offload() which are used by
>> TAPRIO and ETF as well. However, these are only required for MQPRIO.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> Thanks for the update. And I apologise that I now have question.
>
> I see that:
>
> * This patch moves logic from igc_tsn_disable_offload()
>   and igc_tsn_enable_offload() to igc_tsn_enable_mqprio().
>
> * That both igc_tsn_disable_offload() and igc_tsn_enable_offload()
>   are only called from igc_tsn_reset().
>
> * And that based on the description, this looks good for the case
>   where igc_tsn_reset() is called from igc_tsn_offload_apply().
>   This is because igc_tsn_offload_apply() is called from
>   igc_tsn_enable_mqprio().
>
> All good so far.
>
> But my question is about the case where igc_tsn_reset() is called from
> igc_reset(). Does the logic previously present in igc_tsn_enable_offload()
> and igc_tsn_disable_offload() need to run in that case?

This patch moves the netdev_tc calls only. These do not have to run in
this case. The hardware configuration is still applied in
igc_tsn_enable_offload() and igc_tsn_disable_offload().

Thanks,
Kurt

> And, if so, how is that handled?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 861 bytes --]