From: Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@bootlin.com>
To: Piotr Wejman <piotrwejman90@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@synopsys.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: fix rx queue priority assignment
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:40:56 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6bb634fb-fe02-085b-a96f-ea56698ebcb4@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240219102405.32015-1-piotrwejman90@gmail.com>
Hello Piotr,
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Piotr Wejman wrote:
> static void dwmac4_rx_queue_priority(struct mac_device_info *hw,
> - u32 prio, u32 queue)
> + u32 prio_mask, u32 queue)
> {
> void __iomem *ioaddr = hw->pcsr;
> - u32 base_register;
> - u32 value;
> + u32 clear_mask = 0;
> + u32 ctrl2, ctrl3;
> + int i;
>
> - base_register = (queue < 4) ? GMAC_RXQ_CTRL2 : GMAC_RXQ_CTRL3;
> - if (queue >= 4)
> - queue -= 4;
> + ctrl2 = readl(ioaddr + GMAC_RXQ_CTRL2);
> + ctrl3 = readl(ioaddr + GMAC_RXQ_CTRL3);
>
> - value = readl(ioaddr + base_register);
> + for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
> + clear_mask |= ((prio_mask << GMAC_RXQCTRL_PSRQX_SHIFT(i)) &
> + GMAC_RXQCTRL_PSRQX_MASK(i));
>
> - value &= ~GMAC_RXQCTRL_PSRQX_MASK(queue);
> - value |= (prio << GMAC_RXQCTRL_PSRQX_SHIFT(queue)) &
> + ctrl2 &= ~clear_mask;
> + ctrl3 &= ~clear_mask;
> +
> + if (queue < 4) {
> + ctrl2 |= (prio_mask << GMAC_RXQCTRL_PSRQX_SHIFT(queue)) &
This is a bit of a nitpick but do you think it would make sense to replace that
"4" with a macro? Something like GMAC_RXQCTRL_PSRXQ_MAXCTRL2QUEUE?
> GMAC_RXQCTRL_PSRQX_MASK(queue);
> - writel(value, ioaddr + base_register);
> +
> + writel(ctrl2, ioaddr + GMAC_RXQ_CTRL2);
> + writel(ctrl3, ioaddr + GMAC_RXQ_CTRL3);
I suppose that the order of these two writes are somehow important, else these
could be factored out of the conditional block. Could you maybe add a short
comment that explains why the order of these writes matter?
Best Regards,
--
Romain Gantois, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-19 10:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-19 10:24 [PATCH] net: stmmac: fix rx queue priority assignment Piotr Wejman
2024-02-19 10:40 ` Romain Gantois [this message]
2024-02-20 10:08 ` Serge Semin
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=6bb634fb-fe02-085b-a96f-ea56698ebcb4@bootlin.com \
--to=romain.gantois@bootlin.com \
--cc=alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=joabreu@synopsys.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com \
--cc=mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=piotrwejman90@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox