Hello Maxime,
On 30/10/2024 20:17, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> Hello Roger,
>
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:53:58 +0200
> Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On J7 platforms, setting up multiple RX flows was failing
>> as the RX free descriptor ring 0 is shared among all flows
>> and we did not allocate enough elements in the RX free descriptor
>> ring 0 to accommodate for all RX flows.
>>
>> This issue is not present on AM62 as separate pair of
>> rings are used for free and completion rings for each flow.
>>
>> Fix this by allocating enough elements for RX free descriptor
>> ring 0.
>>
>> However, we can no longer rely on desc_idx (descriptor based
>> offsets) to identify the pages in the respective flows as
>> free descriptor ring includes elements for all flows.
>> To solve this, introduce a new swdata data structure to store
>> flow_id and page. This can be used to identify which flow (page_pool)
>> and page the descriptor belonged to when popped out of the
>> RX rings.
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ static int am65_cpsw_nuss_rx_push(struct am65_cpsw_common *common,
>> struct device *dev = common->dev;
>> dma_addr_t desc_dma;
>> dma_addr_t buf_dma;
>> - void *swdata;
>> + struct am65_cpsw_swdata *swdata;
>
> There's a reverse xmas-tree issue here, where variables should be
> declared from the longest line to the shortest.
Will fix.
>
> [...]
>
>> static void am65_cpsw_nuss_rx_cleanup(void *data, dma_addr_t desc_dma)
>> {
>> - struct am65_cpsw_rx_flow *flow = data;
>> + struct am65_cpsw_rx_chn *rx_chn = data;
>> struct cppi5_host_desc_t *desc_rx;
>> - struct am65_cpsw_rx_chn *rx_chn;
>> + struct am65_cpsw_swdata *swdata;
>> dma_addr_t buf_dma;
>> u32 buf_dma_len;
>> - void *page_addr;
>> - void **swdata;
>> - int desc_idx;
>> + struct page *page;
>> + u32 flow_id;
>
> Here as well
ok.
>
> [...]
>
>> rx_chn->rx_chn = k3_udma_glue_request_rx_chn(dev, "rx", &rx_cfg);
>> @@ -2455,10 +2441,12 @@ static int am65_cpsw_nuss_init_rx_chns(struct am65_cpsw_common *common)
>> flow = &rx_chn->flows[i];
>> flow->id = i;
>> flow->common = common;
>> + flow->irq = -EINVAL;
>
> I've tried to follow the code and I don't get that assignment for the
> irq field, does it really have to do with the current change or is it
> another issue that's being fixed ?
>
> Sorry if I missed the point here.
You are right. This change is unrelated to the subject.
I will split it out into another patch. It is meant to fix a problem in the error path.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Maxime
--
cheers,
-roger
