[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54850357.802@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:48:07 +0800
From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
CC: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<linux@....linux.org.uk>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
<sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
<David.Laight@...lab.com>, <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
<xuwei5@...ilicon.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] net: hisilicon: new hip04 ethernet driver
On 2014/12/8 4:09, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 07 December 2014 10:49:12 Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 07.12.14 04:28, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>> On 2014/12/7 8:42, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 19.04.14 03:13, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
>>>>> Support Hisilicon hip04 ethernet driver, including 100M / 1000M controller.
>>>>> The controller has no tx done interrupt, reclaim xmitted buffer in the poll.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>
>>>>
>>>> Is this driver still supposed to go upstream? I presume this was the
>>>> last submission and it's been quite some time ago
>>>>
>>>
>>> yes, it is really a long time, but The hip04 did not support tx irq,
>>> we couldn't get any better idea to fix this defect, do you have any suggestion?
>>
>> Well, if hardware doesn't have a TX irq I don't see there's anything we
>> can do to fix that ;).
>
> I don't know if it's related to the ethernet on hip01, but I would assume
> it is, and that platform is currently being submitted for inclusion, so
> I'd definitely hope to see this driver get merged too eventually.
>
> IIRC, the last revision of the patch set had basically fixed the problem,
> except for a race that would still allow the napi poll function to exit
> with poll_complete() but a full queue of TX descriptors and no fallback
> to clean them up. There was also still an open question about whether or
> not the driver should use skb_orphan, but I may be misremembering that part.
>
>> Dave, what's your take here? Should we keep a driver from going upstream
>> just because the hardware is partly broken? I'd really prefer to have an
>> upstream driver on that SoC rather than some random (eventually even
>> more broken) downstream code.
>
> We can certainly have a slow driver for this hardware, and I'd much
> prefer slow over broken. I'd guess that some of the performance impact
> of the missing interrupts can now be offset with the xmit_more logic.
>
> Arnd
Ok, if so, I can modify this patch set and send them again base on zhangfei's last version
just for reviewing.
Regards
Ding
> --
> 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
>
> .
>
--
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