From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3D40281345; Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739455966; cv=none; b=JtwOIP/V5ACv1xYAaHSpBr1BS1S0nFtwmdKZY9aPxb9Un1uLMEHaQn819VRZWUMQ82BVuFkmYd8oDwsnGlT8QyFuTaVnahhZ+4k6+Jnv3DBzy9IA6eGKRAlmmFsxnMnw5gtaqtWMKqH8gGFn+yTEtPoiuqMFqCVDU8zSjcapzVU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739455966; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BzW+SUPbkzmDCTtzGAbH75OVDoj0R1lG79nB7e2KUr8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GCE8dpOE5a1TvFnNhudsL5QjqAt+/TqfW3aPGlqhs9hgkXeX+DreR5QDso+ShuGKJt36Iu8vXNpEgvPnTYGNGDsMVaSUU3q7QuyCEVfnJCo96sKsnuNk7UCuat0m1AXwxh1sqDfvbCDWw+llwH8mcnvLpzzCr6I7nNpdIlm9Y3s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=NKCF61zd; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=uTTjkpO/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="NKCF61zd"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="uTTjkpO/" From: Kurt Kanzenbach DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1739455957; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=BzW+SUPbkzmDCTtzGAbH75OVDoj0R1lG79nB7e2KUr8=; b=NKCF61zds30qngIyng+oc5y0lDPbl/kQvL/oPHzrRxyQdo0qUFGV3iUaHUI9pqAFxDBN0j 8WxBzE7tYHvxVYcuStC9AIdYqKcuTP7iDB3hwZJ8rsavtdjMhMwXTtXOgmzV2ni0S/6zpc 0nXOV5mbs2sY2X+swrupaNMzinYeYT/csqmFkzhLisp0Hqn4U9v6tNC46LsUoVXfwlkcVD +zWg4zrHq5LWSdjY5jcWKZcljSGQGncBHzFDm6EOkVl1TcIqaz5MbHrgsB4f4ARzrynwSd KwEDSUPSGHc3VBHXkwkFABtwUD05jpVtvbV3bqD4lLkINJr28B2kRhmsGtxamg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1739455957; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=BzW+SUPbkzmDCTtzGAbH75OVDoj0R1lG79nB7e2KUr8=; b=uTTjkpO/ZnaEGhucyOJmim3FeReC/SHMv/5yuThYmbR8aubDStcpBh4+GwNGlZpkQIoTTY Tokwx+8vylKv7GDQ== To: "Abdul Rahim, Faizal" , Vladimir Oltean Cc: Tony Nguyen , Przemek Kitszel , Andrew Lunn , "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Maxime Coquelin , Alexandre Torgue , Simon Horman , Russell King , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , Furong Xu <0x1207@gmail.com>, Russell King , Serge Semin , Xiaolei Wang , Suraj Jaiswal , Kory Maincent , Gal Pressman , Jesper Nilsson , Andrew Halaney , Choong Yong Liang , Kunihiko Hayashi , Vinicius Costa Gomes , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/9] igc: Add support for Frame Preemption feature in IGC In-Reply-To: <1c981aa1-e796-4c53-9853-3eae517f2f6d@linux.intel.com> References: <20250210070207.2615418-1-faizal.abdul.rahim@linux.intel.com> <20250210070207.2615418-1-faizal.abdul.rahim@linux.intel.com> <20250212220121.ici3qll66pfoov62@skbuf> <87cyfmnjdh.fsf@kurt.kurt.home> <5902cc28-a649-4ae9-a5ba-83aa265abaf8@linux.intel.com> <20250213130003.nxt2ev47a6ppqzrq@skbuf> <1c981aa1-e796-4c53-9853-3eae517f2f6d@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:12:35 +0100 Message-ID: <877c5undbg.fsf@kurt.kurt.home> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu Feb 13 2025, Abdul Rahim, Faizal wrote: > On 13/2/2025 9:00 pm, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 08:54:18PM +0800, Abdul Rahim, Faizal wrote: >>>> Well, my idea was to move the current mqprio offload implementation fr= om >>>> legacy TSN Tx mode to the normal TSN Tx mode. Then, taprio and mqprio >>>> can share the same code (with or without fpe). I have a draft patch >>>> ready for that. What do you think about it? >>> >>> Hi Kurt, >>> >>> I=E2=80=99m okay with including it in this series and testing fpe + mqp= rio, but I=E2=80=99m >>> not sure if others might be concerned about adding different functional >>> changes in this fpe series. >>> >>> Hi Vladimir, >>> Any thoughts on this ? >>=20 >> Well, what do you think of my split proposal from here, essentially >> drawing the line for the first patch set at just ethtool mm? >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250213110653.iqy5magn27jyfnwh@skbuf/ >>=20 > > Honestly, after reconsidering, I=E2=80=99d prefer to keep the current ser= ies as is=20 > (without Kurt=E2=80=99s patch), assuming you=E2=80=99re okay with enablin= g mqprio + fpe=20 > later rather than at the same time as taprio + fpe. There likely won=E2= =80=99t be=20 > any additional work needed for mqprio + fpe after Kurt=E2=80=99s patch is= accepted,=20 > since it will mostly reuse the taprio code flow. I think so. After switching the Tx mode mqprio will basically be a special case of taprio with a dummy Qbv schedule. Also the driver currently rejects mqprio with hardware offloading and preemptible_tcs set. So, I do not see any issues in merging your fpe series first. I can handle the mqprio part afterwards. Thanks, Kurt --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJHBAEBCgAxFiEEvLm/ssjDfdPf21mSwZPR8qpGc4IFAmet/dMTHGt1cnRAbGlu dXRyb25peC5kZQAKCRDBk9HyqkZzguJiEACFtqLdMYECmeOz/p8OxgK9pkkB3GjE /ne59xGsryfADF8D4kteIgxdZSEh/EFP7Rx3QFpoDLRtDYcjVzoQ7acJi+TlV50M UalDx0SMG+0kbdtONmX7L0J5f6Z0PoMNwaF5skFbYqhkzai9Z9GK7B+OsNY8J/uQ aSPAOrykNyHbqGH2MKsAfNRIhwO0HFIwZPxCFKvuc6He4uhNaoW+vOXmd/UMi6Ht i7xQRrfR/D9e0oEKpbse2CDmsiQ1i5pC9xwyvMnCcfhsxZ+ERB1AG3IvP3pJn8Qk P3jcsgqmQ2loVOli8ezx1DphWU5UJ4GacQcdgggwlhBYSBH2TnV8MQAFYIGlLycQ EBY2NxIOY0UXfRA5+lDf3seCF7Os6T7R790hLo3ZWIVGPnkuXYLZYvDkJ/eD1Sm6 MM6p5IxpsrR6XhZnUu+mmHs8J8iUj4xN8zFUKwYuWjC+neCIsjLQJtP7wPANKPgi 0I2RXRut1MuSm7lrQMoD+n75oomFOqURsVm0WyrAiw7vAGNSsjqL1aIx0YIzHDs2 mOwt1mPgHd21wTjjNfDt4z6MhLh5DaTLqZ8xyYju57Oa97gtsDZLXbUfytxjWaFm 6+UOjgo/gCNday3bkXsvtrveLRdc+Ng6Ymb3bD5/M4cBO6K2irngg3R7uXXOB5Pm t1avzPuL0QscCw== =1mRZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--