[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221109191941.6af4f71d@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 19:19:41 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
vigneshr@...com, srk@...com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw_ale: optimize
cpsw_ale_restore()
On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 15:56:43 +0200 Roger Quadros wrote:
> If an entry was FREE then we don't have to restore it.
Motivation? Does it make the restore faster?
> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>
> ---
>
> Patch depends on
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20221104132310.31577-3-rogerq@kernel.org/T/
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c
> index 0c5e783e574c..41bcf34a22f8 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c
> @@ -1452,12 +1452,15 @@ void cpsw_ale_dump(struct cpsw_ale *ale, u32 *data)
> }
> }
>
> +/* ALE table should be cleared (ALE_CLEAR) before cpsw_ale_restore() */
Maybe my tree is old but I see we clear only if there is a netdev that
needs to be opened but then always call ale_restore(). Is that okay?
I'd also s/should/must/
> void cpsw_ale_restore(struct cpsw_ale *ale, u32 *data)
> {
> - int i;
> + int i, type;
>
> for (i = 0; i < ale->params.ale_entries; i++) {
> - cpsw_ale_write(ale, i, data);
> + type = cpsw_ale_get_entry_type(data);
> + if (type != ALE_TYPE_FREE)
> + cpsw_ale_write(ale, i, data);
> data += ALE_ENTRY_WORDS;
> }
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists