Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/9] igc: Add support for Frame Preemption feature in IGC

[Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1024 bytes --]

On Thu Feb 13 2025, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> So, confusingly to me, it seems like one operating mode is fundamentally
> different from the other, and something will have to change if both will
> be made to behave the same. What will change? You say mqprio will behave
> like taprio, but I think if anything, mqprio is the one which does the
> right thing, in igc_tsn_tx_arb(), and taprio seems to use the default Tx
> arbitration scheme?

Correct. taprio is using the default scheme. mqprio configures it to
what ever the user provided (in igc_tsn_tx_arb()).

> I don't think I'm on the same page as you guys, because to me, it is
> just odd that the P traffic classes would be the first ones with
> mqprio, but the last ones with taprio.

I think we are on the same page here. At the end both have to behave the
same. Either by using igc_tsn_tx_arb() for taprio too or only using the
default scheme for both (and thereby keeping broken_mqprio). Whatever
Faizal implements I'll match the behavior with mqprio.

Thanks,
Kurt

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