Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Keep ATU/VTU violation statistics

[Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>]

On 03/27/2018 02:59 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Count the numbers of various ATU and VTU violation statistics and
> return them as part of the ethtool -S statistics.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> ---
>  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c        | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h        | 13 ++++++---
>  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_atu.c | 12 +++++---
>  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_vtu.c |  8 ++++--
>  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/serdes.c      | 15 ++++++----
>  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/serdes.h      |  8 +++---
>  6 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> index 9a5d786b4885..186021f98c5d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> @@ -723,6 +723,24 @@ static int mv88e6320_stats_get_strings(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip,
>  					   STATS_TYPE_BANK0 | STATS_TYPE_BANK1);
>  }
>  
> +static const uint8_t *mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings[] = {

Why not const char *?

> +	"atu_member_violation",
> +	"atu_miss_violation",
> +	"atu_full_violation",
> +	"vtu_member_violation",
> +	"vtu_miss_violation",
> +};
> +
> +static void mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_get_strings(uint8_t *data)
> +{
> +	int i;

unsigned int i?

> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings); i++)
> +		strlcpy(data + i * ETH_GSTRING_LEN,
> +			mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings[i],
> +			ETH_GSTRING_LEN);
> +}
> +
>  static void mv88e6xxx_get_strings(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>  				  uint8_t *data)
>  {
> @@ -736,9 +754,12 @@ static void mv88e6xxx_get_strings(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>  
>  	if (chip->info->ops->serdes_get_strings) {
>  		data += count * ETH_GSTRING_LEN;
> -		chip->info->ops->serdes_get_strings(chip, port, data);
> +		count = chip->info->ops->serdes_get_strings(chip, port, data);
>  	}
>  
> +	data += count * ETH_GSTRING_LEN;
> +	mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_get_strings(data);
> +
>  	mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock);
>  }
>  
> @@ -783,10 +804,13 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_get_sset_count(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
>  	if (chip->info->ops->serdes_get_sset_count)
>  		serdes_count = chip->info->ops->serdes_get_sset_count(chip,
>  								      port);
> -	if (serdes_count < 0)
> +	if (serdes_count < 0) {
>  		count = serdes_count;
> -	else
> -		count += serdes_count;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +	count += serdes_count;
> +	count += ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings);
> +
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock);
>  
> @@ -841,6 +865,16 @@ static int mv88e6390_stats_get_stats(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
>  					 0);
>  }
>  
> +static void mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_get_stats(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> +					uint64_t *data)
> +{
> +	*data++ = chip->ports[port].atu_member_violation;
> +	*data++ = chip->ports[port].atu_miss_violation;
> +	*data++ = chip->ports[port].atu_full_violation;
> +	*data++ = chip->ports[port].vtu_member_violation;
> +	*data++ = chip->ports[port].vtu_miss_violation;

This looks fine, but I suppose you could just have an u64 pointer which
is initialized to point to atu_member_violation, and then just do
pointer arithmetics to iterate, this would avoid possibly missing that
function in case new ATU/VTU violations are handled in the future?
-- 
Florian