[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <stdtvjzyaudpnxoj4pxdqw4okrmq2bkmbefvyapbs2racx4dhv@of5t463f4nm5>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 03:18:03 +0300
From: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
To: Rohan G Thomas <rohan.g.thomas@...el.com>
Cc: alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, conor+dt@...nel.org,
conor.dooley@...rochip.com, davem@...emloft.net,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
joabreu@...opsys.com, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
kuba@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com, robh+dt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/2] dt-bindings: net: snps,dwmac: Tx queues
with coe
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 01:10:04AM +0800, Rohan G Thomas wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 05:15:25PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 10:31:31 +0800 Rohan G Thomas wrote:
> >> > + snps,tx-queues-with-coe:
> >> > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> >> > + description: number of TX queues that support TX checksum offloading
> >>
> >
> >> Is it going to be obvious that if not present all queues support
> >> checksum offload? I think we should document the default.
> >
> >This question is debatable:
> >1. By default the DW xGMAC and DW QoS Eth IP-cores are
> >synthesized with only the very first Tx queue having Tx COE enabled.
> >2. If TSO is disabled then the Tx COE can be individually enabled
> >for each queue available on DW QoS Eth controller and for the very
> >first N queues on DW xGMAC controller.
> >3. If TSO is enabled then the Tx COE will be automatically and always
> >enabled for as many first queues as there are TSO-capable
> >DMA-channels.
> >4. At the current state the STMMAC driver assumes that all Tx Queues
> >support Tx COE.
> >
> >The entry 4 can't be changed since we'll risk to catch regressions on
> >the platforms with no property specified. On the other hand it partly
> >contradicts to the rest of the entries. I don't know what would be a
> >correct way to specify the default value in this case. Most likely
> >just keep the entry 4 and be done with it.
> >
> >BTW I just noticed that but the suggested "snps,tx-queues-with-coe"
> >property semantic will only cover a DW XGMAC-part of the case 2. DW
> >QoS Eth can be synthesized with Tx COE individually enabled for a
> >particular queue if TSO is unavailable.
>
> Hi Serge,
>
> Didn't know about a different IP configuration supported by DW QoS Eth IP. If
> this is the case, I think we can have a flag 'coe-unsupported' for any TX
> queue subnode as below.
>
> + snps,coe-unsupported:
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
AFAIR tKrzysztof preferred to use type: boolean for the flags.
> + description:
> + TX checksum offload is unsupported by the TX queue.
> + If TX checksum
> + offload is requested for a packet to be transmitted through this
> + TX queue then have a software fallback in the driver for checksum
> + calculation.
This is redundant in the HW description.
>
> If this is okay, I can rework the patch based on this. Covers both DW QoS Eth IP
> and DW XGMAC IP cases.
I guess that's the only choice we have seeing the driver already
expects all the Tx queues having the COE supported.
-Serge(y)
>
> >
> >-Serge(y)
> >
> >> --
> >> pw-bot: cr
>
> BR,
> Rohan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists