Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] net: ti: icssg-prueth: Use page_pool API for RX buffer allocation

["Malladi, Meghana" <m-malladi@ti.com>]

Hi Diogo,

On 2/18/2025 5:54 PM, Diogo Ivo wrote:
> Hi Meghana, On 2/18/25 10: 10 AM, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > On 2/12/2025 
> 7: 26 PM, Roger Quadros wrote: >> Can we get rid of SKB entirely from 
> the management channel code? >> The packet received on this channel is 
> never passed to
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
> This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source 
> of this email and know the content is safe.
> Report Suspicious
> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! 
> uvdgfB3F_Ow7QIXEnBKj3ybYT8I9yL0CM5RLkel44YW99zMeqk_TnCBkOwR0q45N5dLjtBz49EalJyUJ1-U1lPk6DIBve_3-$>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
> 
> Hi Meghana,
> 
> On 2/18/25 10:10 AM, Malladi, Meghana wrote:
>> On 2/12/2025 7:26 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>> Can we get rid of SKB entirely from the management channel code?
>>> The packet received on this channel is never passed to user space so
>>> I don't see why SKB is required.
>>>
>> 
>> Yes I do agree with you on the fact the SKB here is not passed to the 
>> network stack, hence this is redundant. But honestly I am not sure how 
>> that can be done, because the callers of this function access skb->data
>> from the skb which is returned and the same can't be done with page (how 
>> to pass the same data using page?)
>> Also as you are aware we are not currently supporting SR1 devices 
>> anymore, hence I don't have any SR1 devices handy to test these changes 
>> and ensure nothing is broken if I remove SKB entirely.
> 
> I have some SR1 devices available and would be happy to test these
> proposed changes in case they are feasible.
> 

That's awesome. Once the changes have been aligned with Roger, I will 
share the changes with you for testing before posting v3. Thanks for 
your support.

> Best regards,
> Diogo
>