On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 3:12:59 PM CET Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Sven Eckelmann <se@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thank you for submitting the patch.
> >
> > On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 13:41:44 CET Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >> Since this is based on ideas by all three people, but not actually
> >> directly derived from any of the patches, I'm including Suggested-by
> >> tags from Simon, Sven and Felix below, which should hopefully serve as
> >> proper credit.
> >
> > At least for me, this is more than enough. Thanks.
> >
> > I don't have the setup at the moment to test it again - maybe Issam can do
> > this. One concern I would have (because I don't find the notes regarding
> > this problem), is whether this check is now breaking because we count
> > more things. In the past, rxlp/rxok was used for the check. And now I
> > don't know whether the count for the other ones were still increasing.
> >
> > * RXHP (rather sure that "high priority frame" wasn't increasing)
> > * RXEOL ("no RX descriptors available" - I would guess no, but I can't say
> > for>
> > sure)
> >
> > * RXORN ("FIFO overrun" I would guess no, but I can't say for sure)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Sven Eckelmann <se@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Great, thanks for the review! I'll let it sit in patchwork for a little
> while to give people a chance to test it out before sending it over to
> Kalle to be applied :)
>
> -Toke
Hi Toke,
this looks good to me in general. I'm not sure either about the particular RX
interrupts. We can test this by putting the AP in a shield box and verify that
the counters are actually increasing, and that should be good enough.
Acked-by: Simon Wunderlich <sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you!
Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
