Simon Wunderlich <sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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>
Great, thanks! Would be awesome if you could test it out an report back! :)
-Toke
