[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF81C38C1E.8CA7B998-ONC1257585.0064CBE7-C1257585.0065482F@transmode.se>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:26:17 +0100
From: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
To: avorontsov@...mvista.com
Cc: leoli@...escale.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ucc_geth: Rework the TX logic.
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com> wrote on 26/03/2009 19:03:54:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:44:05PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > The line:
> > if ((bd == ugeth->txBd[txQ]) && (netif_queue_stopped(dev) == 0))
> > break;
> > in ucc_geth_tx() didn not make sense to me. Rework & cleanup
> > this logic to something understandable.
> > ---
> >
> > Reworked the patch according to Antons comments.
> >
> > drivers/net/ucc_geth.c | 66
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > 1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ucc_geth.c b/drivers/net/ucc_geth.c
> > index 7fc91aa..465de3a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ucc_geth.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ucc_geth.c
> > @@ -161,6 +161,17 @@ static struct ucc_geth_info ugeth_primary_info =
{
> >
> > static struct ucc_geth_info ugeth_info[8];
> >
> > +
> > +static inline u32 __iomem *bd2buf(u8 __iomem *bd)
> > +{
> > + return (u32 __iomem *)(bd+4);
>
> Spaces around "+"...
Bugger, I forgot when I moved it.
>
> Also, now it's obvious that we're just reading status or buf.
>
> So instead of these inlines we could use struct qe_bd as described
> in asm/qe.h.
>
> I.e.
>
> struct qe_bd *bd = ...;
>
> in_be32(&bd->buf);
> in_be16(&bd->status);
>
> Oh, wait. We can't, ucc_geth assumes status is u32, which includes
> the length field, i.e. ucc_fast.h defines:
>
> #define T_W 0x20000000
>
> :-(
>
> The cleanup work surely desires a separate patch, so bd2buf and
> bd2status are OK, for now.
Exactly, I did look at using struct qe_bd *bd, but that will
affect lots of stuff. Reading the status and len in one go is
also quite handy so I not sure it is a good idea to convert.
>
> I'll test the patch as soon as I'll get some QE board back on
> my table (actually I have one QE board handy, but it's a 1GHz
> one, while I'd like to test the patch on a slow machine, where
> we'll actually see performance regressions).
Good, I have more coming but it touches the same code so I really want
to sort out this one first.
Jocke
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists