[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200130091055.159d63ed@cakuba>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:10:55 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Robert Jones <rjones@...eworks.com>
Cc: Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>,
Robert Richter <rrichter@...vell.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: thunderx: workaround BGX TX Underflow issue
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:36:09 -0800, Robert Jones wrote:
> From: Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>
>
> While it is not yet understood why a TX underflow can easily occur
> for SGMII interfaces resulting in a TX wedge. It has been found that
> disabling/re-enabling the LMAC resolves the issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>
> Reviewed-by: Robert Jones <rjones@...eworks.com>
Sunil or Robert (i.e. one of the maintainers) will have to review this
patch (as indicated by Dave by marking it with "Needs Review / ACK" in
patchwork).
At a quick look there are some things which jump out at me:
> +static int bgx_register_intr(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> + struct bgx *bgx = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + int num_vec, ret;
> +
> + /* Enable MSI-X */
> + num_vec = pci_msix_vec_count(pdev);
> + ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, num_vec, num_vec, PCI_IRQ_MSIX);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Req for #%d msix vectors failed\n", num_vec);
> + return 1;
Please propagate real error codes, or make this function void as the
caller never actually checks the return value.
> + }
> + sprintf(bgx->irq_name, "BGX%d", bgx->bgx_id);
> + ret = request_irq(pci_irq_vector(pdev, GMPX_GMI_TX_INT),
There is a alloc_irq and request_irq call added in this patch but there
is never any freeing. Are you sure this is fine? Devices can be
reprobed (unbound and bound to drivers via sysfs).
> + bgx_intr_handler, 0, bgx->irq_name, bgx);
Please align the continuation line with the opening bracket (checkpatch
--strict should help catch this).
> + if (ret)
> + return 1;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists