From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 131C5270EDD for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2025 17:12:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744218745; cv=none; b=KQbOn+iZG0VP983zRl2QUN/6X/NxvT1KYl6JVNvdh9VHjB2yGlwKsXrnjf0GUT1Iaip69dVE2MzLwn0HaktYS214B1M3944HpmMUCJnZDsyZyqLaxbF7vXNviiVQSobI4NbJkakjZfuIMZFlLX1xGOd7v9om/E1lYERNEacmMBg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744218745; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JIZFCjcTXRdnW6c6x5d8dJNp8rrFEgq4XX8fK7te02w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nfMg7KmhXz09cbPZOx98jgzFRrs7cqor56nFW+wbHor8CFuZZRemToqrpvbW8NYBlU5L/wpQWw/CYQf8SWOLOWwImCDhlorndSvvBjSniO1lOLYDZpVg/EtMP5fWkvXN9+uu+S8ND2e0f0AiAQAN4Xla9M00QS6dOXbhwVvbn4M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=i7+aRtmy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="i7+aRtmy" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26810C4CEE8; Wed, 9 Apr 2025 17:12:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744218744; bh=JIZFCjcTXRdnW6c6x5d8dJNp8rrFEgq4XX8fK7te02w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=i7+aRtmyOE2VQQk0xZhoUORYDK+6GU8sRnNbKqbeTnWMd4EYZhlKK1lYd06UMD0Ym BjxS02lO6IE8Oac+FzF72keKwK0OFTG8XG3K/2M1hIw8QrBLxo1YfgR/uMTQgFcJ9G n53zPZiol1fkdF24YznvJqhZnR6dvYebIb0rviBzo5V0UQzex90XJo+U5m+S+PsYUx lUN3z3/XLficvL0WxA18EgOg1/2Rp5h+oBsDQ7rgxDT/qC0+HEL5yp6rg8X+Eo0TJ7 AmHjnUnyXFFHLP3Aipcg4BniesanVqb6iyv5r/G2lSbc/FSQ/bwJD5v8xRwgACc9oR BXvz9m120TuCQ== Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 18:12:19 +0100 From: Simon Horman To: Kurt Kanzenbach Cc: Tony Nguyen , Przemek Kitszel , Faizal Rahim , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 1/2] igc: Limit netdev_tc calls to MQPRIO Message-ID: <20250409171219.GQ395307@horms.kernel.org> References: <20250321-igc_mqprio_tx_mode-v4-0-4571abb6714e@linutronix.de> <20250321-igc_mqprio_tx_mode-v4-1-4571abb6714e@linutronix.de> <20250407124741.GJ395307@horms.kernel.org> <87mscqsvui.fsf@jax.kurt.home> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mscqsvui.fsf@jax.kurt.home> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote: > 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 > > > > 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 for clarifying, in that case this looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman