On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 01:04:52PM +0000, Parthiban.Veerasooran@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 08/05/24 10:34 pm, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >
> >> Yes. I tried this test. It works as expected.
> >
> >> Each LAN8651 received approximately 3Mbps with lot of "Receive buffer
> >> overflow error". I think it is expected as the single SPI master has to
> >> serve both LAN8651 at the same time and both LAN8651 will be receiving
> >> 10Mbps on each.
> >
> > Thanks for testing this.
> >
> > This also shows the "Receive buffer overflow error" needs to go away.
> > Either we don't care at all, and should not enable the interrupt, or
> > we do care and should increment a counter.
> Thanks for your comments. I think, I would go for your 2nd proposal
> because having "Receive buffer overflow error" enabled will indicate the
> cause of the poor performance.
>
> Already we have,
> tc6->netdev->stats.rx_dropped++;
> to increment the rx dropped counter in case of receive buffer overflow.
>
> May be we can remove the print,
> net_err_ratelimited("%s: Receive buffer overflow error\n",
> tc6->netdev->name);
> as it might lead to additional poor performance by adding some delay.
>
> Could you please provide your opinion on this?
This is your code. Ideally you should decide. I will only add review
comments if i think it is wrong. Any can decide between any correct
option.
Andrew
