Hi Andrew,
On 10/05/24 2:09 am, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> 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.
Sure, thanks for your advice. Let me stick with the above proposal until
I get any others opinion.
Best regards,
Parthiban V
>
> Andrew
>
