Re: [PATCH v2 06/14] net: wwan: t7xx: Add AT and MBIM WWAN ports

["Martinez, Ricardo" <ricardo.martinez@linux.intel.com>]

On 11/9/2021 4:06 AM, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 6:57 AM Ricardo Martinez wrote:
>> ...
>>   static struct t7xx_port md_ccci_ports[] = {
>> +       {CCCI_UART2_TX, CCCI_UART2_RX, DATA_AT_CMD_Q, DATA_AT_CMD_Q, 0xff,
>> +        0xff, ID_CLDMA1, PORT_F_RX_CHAR_NODE, &wwan_sub_port_ops, 0, "ttyC0", WWAN_PORT_AT},
>> +       {CCCI_MBIM_TX, CCCI_MBIM_RX, 2, 2, 0, 0, ID_CLDMA1,
>> +        PORT_F_RX_CHAR_NODE, &wwan_sub_port_ops, 10, "ttyCMBIM0", WWAN_PORT_MBIM},
>> ...
>> +               if (count + CCCI_H_ELEN > txq_mtu &&
>> +                   (port_ccci->tx_ch == CCCI_MBIM_TX ||
>> +                    (port_ccci->tx_ch >= CCCI_DSS0_TX && port_ccci->tx_ch <= CCCI_DSS7_TX)))
>> +                       multi_packet = DIV_ROUND_UP(count, txq_mtu - CCCI_H_ELEN);
> I am just wondering, the chip does support MBIM message fragmentation,
> but does not support AT commands stream (CCCI_UART2_TX) fragmentation.
> Is that the correct conclusion from the code above?
Yes, that is correct.
>
> BTW, you could factor out data fragmentation support to a dedicated
> function to improve code readability. Something like this:
>
> static inline bool port_is_multipacket_capable(... *port)
> {
>          return port->tx_ch == CCCI_MBIM_TX ||
>                 (port->tx_ch >= CCCI_DSS0_TX && port->tx_ch <= CCCI_DSS7_TX);
> }
>
> So condition become something like that:
>
>          if (count + CCCI_H_ELEN > txq_mtu &&
>              port_is_multipacket_capable(port))
>                  multi_packet = DIV_ROUND_UP(count, txq_mtu - CCCI_H_ELEN);

Ricardo