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
