> This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this > email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible. > --- > net: airoha: Do not stop GDM port if it is shared > > This patch adds a per-port users refcount so the GDM forward configuration > is only reset to FE_PSE_PORT_DROP when the last netdev attached to the > shared GDM port stops, and it adjusts the MTU/length register updates to > cope with the shared case. > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/airoha/airoha_eth.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/airoha/airoha_eth.c > > index 0253919714e0..1c4927c1aeb0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/airoha/airoha_eth.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/airoha/airoha_eth.c > > @@ -1714,8 +1714,8 @@ static int airoha_dev_open(struct net_device *netdev) > > int err, len = ETH_HLEN + netdev->mtu + ETH_FCS_LEN; > > struct airoha_gdm_dev *dev = netdev_priv(netdev); > > struct airoha_gdm_port *port = dev->port; > > + u32 cur_len, pse_port = FE_PSE_PORT_PPE1; > > struct airoha_qdma *qdma = dev->qdma; > > - u32 pse_port = FE_PSE_PORT_PPE1; > > > > netif_tx_start_all_queues(netdev); > > err = airoha_set_vip_for_gdm_port(dev, true); > > @@ -1729,10 +1729,14 @@ static int airoha_dev_open(struct net_device *netdev) > > airoha_fe_clear(qdma->eth, REG_GDM_INGRESS_CFG(port->id), > > GDM_STAG_EN_MASK); > > > > - airoha_fe_rmw(qdma->eth, REG_GDM_LEN_CFG(port->id), > > - GDM_SHORT_LEN_MASK | GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK, > > - FIELD_PREP(GDM_SHORT_LEN_MASK, 60) | > > - FIELD_PREP(GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK, len)); > > + cur_len = airoha_fe_get(qdma->eth, REG_GDM_LEN_CFG(port->id), > > + GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK); > > + if (!atomic_read(&port->users) || len > cur_len) > > + airoha_fe_rmw(qdma->eth, REG_GDM_LEN_CFG(port->id), > > + GDM_SHORT_LEN_MASK | GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK, > > + FIELD_PREP(GDM_SHORT_LEN_MASK, 60) | > > + FIELD_PREP(GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK, len)); > > + atomic_inc(&port->users); > > [Medium] > When a second netdev opens with a larger MTU, this unconditionally > widens GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK for the already-running sibling that has a > smaller MTU: > > if (!atomic_read(&port->users) || len > cur_len) > airoha_fe_rmw(qdma->eth, REG_GDM_LEN_CFG(port->id), > GDM_SHORT_LEN_MASK | GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK, > FIELD_PREP(GDM_SHORT_LEN_MASK, 60) | > FIELD_PREP(GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK, len)); > > Meanwhile airoha_dev_change_mtu() rejects shrinks (len < cur_len) with > -EBUSY when the port is shared. Is this asymmetry intentional? This is done intentionally since we do not want to break traffic of already running net_device if we want to increase the MTU on a sibling net_device. > > With the new policy the hardware long-length ends up as the maximum of > the two MTUs, so the smaller-MTU sibling silently accepts frames larger > than its advertised MTU at the MAC level. Should opens that would > increase the shared length also be gated (symmetric policy), or should > the commit message and a comment document the chosen ceiling/floor > behaviour? I will add a comment in the code in v5. > > > > > airoha_qdma_set(qdma, REG_QDMA_GLOBAL_CFG, > > GLOBAL_CFG_TX_DMA_EN_MASK | > > @@ -1762,8 +1766,12 @@ static int airoha_dev_stop(struct net_device *netdev) > > for (i = 0; i < netdev->num_tx_queues; i++) > > netdev_tx_reset_subqueue(netdev, i); > > > > - airoha_set_gdm_port_fwd_cfg(qdma->eth, REG_GDM_FWD_CFG(port->id), > > - FE_PSE_PORT_DROP); > > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&port->users)) { > > + airoha_set_vip_for_gdm_port(dev, false); > > + airoha_set_gdm_port_fwd_cfg(qdma->eth, > > + REG_GDM_FWD_CFG(port->id), > > + FE_PSE_PORT_DROP); > > + } > > [Low] > Is the airoha_set_vip_for_gdm_port(dev, false) call inside the > atomic_dec_and_test() block intentional? > > Looking at airoha_dev_stop() as a whole, the same call is already made > unconditionally a few lines above: > > netif_tx_disable(netdev); > airoha_set_vip_for_gdm_port(dev, false); > for (i = 0; i < netdev->num_tx_queues; i++) > netdev_tx_reset_subqueue(netdev, i); > > if (atomic_dec_and_test(&port->users)) { > airoha_set_vip_for_gdm_port(dev, false); > ... > } > > Since get_vip_port() derives the bit mask per-(port, dev->nbq) and > airoha_fe_clear() of already-cleared bits is a no-op, the second call > looks like dead code today. The commit log only mentions the > FE_PSE_PORT_DROP gating, not VIP handling. Should the duplicate be > dropped in v2? ack, I will fix in v5. > > > > > if (atomic_dec_and_test(&qdma->users)) { > > airoha_qdma_clear(qdma, REG_QDMA_GLOBAL_CFG, > > @@ -1915,10 +1923,22 @@ static void airoha_dev_get_stats64(struct net_device *netdev, > > static int airoha_dev_change_mtu(struct net_device *netdev, int mtu) > > { > > struct airoha_gdm_dev *dev = netdev_priv(netdev); > > + u32 cur_len, len = ETH_HLEN + mtu + ETH_FCS_LEN; > > struct airoha_gdm_port *port = dev->port; > > - u32 len = ETH_HLEN + mtu + ETH_FCS_LEN; > > struct airoha_eth *eth = dev->eth; > > > > + cur_len = airoha_fe_get(eth, REG_GDM_LEN_CFG(port->id), > > + GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK); > > + if (len < cur_len) { > > + u8 port_refcnt = atomic_read(&port->users); > > + > > + /* We can decrease the device MTU just if the GDM port is > > + * not shared or if the other device is not running. > > + */ > > + if (port_refcnt > 1 || (port_refcnt && !netif_running(netdev))) > > + return -EBUSY; > > + } > > + > > [Low] > Why is port_refcnt typed as u8 here when atomic_read() returns int? > > u8 port_refcnt = atomic_read(&port->users); > > With AIROHA_MAX_NUM_GDM_DEVS currently 2 this cannot overflow, but a > future bump of AIROHA_MAX_NUM_GDM_DEVS, or a refcount leak, that pushed > port->users to 256 would wrap to 0 and quietly bypass both the > port_refcnt > 1 and port_refcnt && !netif_running(netdev) checks, > permitting MTU shrinks that are meant to be rejected. Would using int > here (the type atomic_read() returns) be preferable? ack, I will fix in v5. Regards, Lorenzo > > > airoha_fe_rmw(eth, REG_GDM_LEN_CFG(port->id), > > GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK, > > FIELD_PREP(GDM_LONG_LEN_MASK, len));