[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1KvLP39QFyvbARB@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:39:40 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@...tura.hr>,
Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/5] net: ipqess: introduce the Qualcomm
IPQESS driver
> +static int ipqess_axi_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + const struct net_device *netdev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + struct ipqess *ess = netdev_priv(netdev);
> +
> + ipqess_hw_stop(ess);
> + unregister_netdev(ess->netdev);
Should the unregister come first? What happens if the network stack
tries to use the interface during/after ipqess_hw_stop()? It just
seems like it would be safer to first unregister the interface, and
then stop it?
> +struct ipqess_tx_desc {
> + __le16 len;
> + __le16 svlan_tag;
> + __le32 word1;
> + __le32 addr;
> + __le32 word3;
> +} __aligned(16) __packed;
> +
> +struct ipqess_rx_desc {
> + u16 rrd0;
> + u16 rrd1;
> + u16 rrd2;
> + u16 rrd3;
> + u16 rrd4;
> + u16 rrd5;
> + u16 rrd6;
> + u16 rrd7;
> +} __aligned(16) __packed;
The TX descriptor is little endian, but the RX descriptor is host
endian?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists