> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024, at 09:49, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > Add airoha_eth driver in order to introduce ethernet support for
> > Airoha EN7581 SoC available on EN7581 development board (en7581-evb).
> > en7581-evb networking architecture is composed by airoha_eth as mac
> > controller (cpu port) and a mt7530 dsa based switch.
> > EN7581 mac controller is mainly composed by Frame Engine (FE) and
> > QoS-DMA (QDMA) modules. FE is used for traffic offloading (just basic
> > functionalities are supported now) while QDMA is used for DMA operation
> > and QOS functionalities between mac layer and the dsa switch (hw QoS is
> > not available yet and it will be added in the future).
> > Currently only hw lan features are available, hw wan will be added with
> > subsequent patches.
> >
> > Tested-by: Benjamin Larsson <benjamin.larsson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I noticed a few small things that you may want to improve:
Hi Arnd,
thx for the review.
>
> > +static void airoha_qdma_set_irqmask(struct airoha_eth *eth, int index,
> > + u32 clear, u32 set)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(index >= ARRAY_SIZE(eth->irqmask)))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(ð->irq_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + eth->irqmask[index] &= ~clear;
> > + eth->irqmask[index] |= set;
> > + airoha_qdma_wr(eth, REG_INT_ENABLE(index), eth->irqmask[index]);
> > +
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(ð->irq_lock, flags);
> > +}
>
> spin_lock_irqsave() is fairly expensive here, and it doesn't
> actually protect the register write since that is posted
> and can leak out of the spinlock.
>
> You can probably just remove the lock and instead do the mask
> with atomic_cmpxchg() here.
I did not get what you mean here. I guess the spin_lock is used to avoid
concurrent irq registers updates from user/bh context or irq handler.
Am I missing something?
>
> > +
> > + dma_sync_single_for_device(dev, e->dma_addr, e->dma_len, dir);
> > +
> > + val = FIELD_PREP(QDMA_DESC_LEN_MASK, e->dma_len);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->ctrl, cpu_to_le32(val));
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->addr, cpu_to_le32(e->dma_addr));
> > + val = FIELD_PREP(QDMA_DESC_NEXT_ID_MASK, q->head);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->data, cpu_to_le32(val));
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->msg0, 0);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->msg1, 0);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->msg2, 0);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->msg3, 0);
> > +
> > + wmb();
> > + airoha_qdma_rmw(eth, REG_RX_CPU_IDX(qid), RX_RING_CPU_IDX_MASK,
> > + FIELD_PREP(RX_RING_CPU_IDX_MASK, q->head));
>
> The wmb() between the descriptor write and the MMIO does nothing
> and can probably just be removed here, a writel() already contains
> all the barriers you need to make DMA memory visible before the
> MMIO write.
>
> If there is a chance that the device might read the descriptor
> while it is being updated by you have not written to the
> register, there should be a barrier before the last store to
> the descriptor that sets a 'valid' bit. That one can be a
> cheaper dma_wmb() then.
ack, I will fix it in v4.
>
> > +static irqreturn_t airoha_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_instance)
> > +{
> > + struct airoha_eth *eth = dev_instance;
> > + u32 intr[ARRAY_SIZE(eth->irqmask)];
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(eth->irqmask); i++) {
> > + intr[i] = airoha_qdma_rr(eth, REG_INT_STATUS(i));
> > + intr[i] &= eth->irqmask[i];
> > + airoha_qdma_wr(eth, REG_INT_STATUS(i), intr[i]);
> > + }
>
> This looks like you send an interrupt Ack to each
> interrupt in order to re-arm it, but then you disable
> it again. Would it be possible to leave the interrupt enabled
> but defer the Ack until the napi poll function is completed?
I guess doing so we are not using NAPIs as expected since they are
supposed to run with interrupt disabled. Agree?
>
> > + if (!test_bit(DEV_STATE_INITIALIZED, ð->state))
> > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > +
> > + if (intr[1] & RX_DONE_INT_MASK) {
> > + airoha_qdma_irq_disable(eth, QDMA_INT_REG_IDX1,
> > + RX_DONE_INT_MASK);
> > + airoha_qdma_for_each_q_rx(eth, i) {
> > + if (intr[1] & BIT(i))
> > + napi_schedule(ð->q_rx[i].napi);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Something seems wrong here, but that's probably just me
> misunderstanding the design: if all queues are signaled
> through the same interrupt handler, and you then do
> napi_schedule() for each queue, I would expect them to
> just all get run on the same CPU.
>
> If you have separate queues, doesn't that mean you also need
> separate irq numbers here so they can be distributed to the
> available CPUs?
Actually I missed to mark the NAPI as threaded. Doing so, even if we have a
single irq line shared by all Rx queues, the scheduler can run the NAPIs in
parallel on different CPUs. I will fix it in v4.
>
> > + val = FIELD_PREP(QDMA_DESC_LEN_MASK, len);
> > + if (i < nr_frags - 1)
> > + val |= FIELD_PREP(QDMA_DESC_MORE_MASK, 1);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->ctrl, cpu_to_le32(val));
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->addr, cpu_to_le32(addr));
> > + val = FIELD_PREP(QDMA_DESC_NEXT_ID_MASK, index);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->data, cpu_to_le32(val));
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->msg0, cpu_to_le32(msg0));
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->msg1, cpu_to_le32(msg1));
> > + WRITE_ONCE(desc->msg2, cpu_to_le32(0xffff));
> > +
> > + e->skb = i ? NULL : skb;
> > + e->dma_addr = addr;
> > + e->dma_len = len;
> > +
> > + wmb();
> > + airoha_qdma_rmw(eth, REG_TX_CPU_IDX(qid), TX_RING_CPU_IDX_MASK,
> > + FIELD_PREP(TX_RING_CPU_IDX_MASK, index));
>
> Same as above with the wmb().
ack, I will fix it in v4.
>
> > +static int airoha_rx_queues_show(struct seq_file *s, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct airoha_eth *eth = s->private;
> > + int i;
> > +
> ...
> > +static int airoha_xmit_queues_show(struct seq_file *s, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct airoha_eth *eth = s->private;
> > + int i;
> > +
>
> Isn't this information available through ethtool already?
I guess we can get rid of this debugfs since it was just for debugging.
>
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/airoha_eth.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..fcd684e1418a
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/airoha_eth.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,793 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (C) 2024 Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#define AIROHA_MAX_NUM_RSTS 3
> > +#define AIROHA_MAX_NUM_XSI_RSTS 4
>
> If your driver only has a single .c file, I would suggest moving all the
> contents of the .h file into that as well for better readability.
I do not have a strong opinion about it but since we will extend the driver
in the future, keeping .c and .h in different files, seems a bit more tidy.
What do you think?
Regards,
Lorenzo
>
> Arnd
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
