[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b32d3aa4-33ba-4b9b-b7d3-181c451f8528@cogentembedded.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 13:51:44 +0500
From: Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>
To: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Dege <michael.dege@...esas.com>,
Christian Mardmoeller <christian.mardmoeller@...esas.com>,
Dennis Ostermann <dennis.ostermann@...esas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: renesas: rswitch: request ts interrupt
at port open
> Wasn't previous implementation more obvious? This ts irq you have one
> per device, no per port, so it better fit to one time initialization
> instead of checking if it is first and last port.
>
> Anyway, it is your descision, patch looks correct:
> Reviewed-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
For data interrupts, after making them per-port, it is better to request only for opened device, to
avoid unneeded calls to shared handlers when some ports are up and some are not.
And once data interrupts are requested at open, it looks cleaner for me to request ts interrupt at open
as well. Although I agree that this is matter of taste.
Nikita
Powered by blists - more mailing lists