[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <VI1PR04MB58078B0BEA735CBB2C9E1F32F2100@VI1PR04MB5807.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:08:26 +0000
From: Camelia Alexandra Groza <camelia.groza@....com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com" <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
"Madalin Bucur (OSS)" <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net v2 1/2] dpaa_eth: update the buffer layout for
non-A050385 erratum scenarios
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 03:41
> To: Camelia Alexandra Groza <camelia.groza@....com>
> Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com; Madalin Bucur (OSS)
> <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>; davem@...emloft.net;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] dpaa_eth: update the buffer layout for non-
> A050385 erratum scenarios
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:40:59 +0200 Camelia Groza wrote:
> > Impose a large RX private data area only when the A050385 erratum is
> > present on the hardware. A smaller buffer size is sufficient in all
> > other scenarios. This enables a wider range of linear frame sizes
> > in non-erratum scenarios
>
> Any word on user impact? Measurable memory waste?
I'll add more details.
> > Fixes: 3c68b8fffb48 ("dpaa_eth: FMan erratum A050385 workaround")
> > Signed-off-by: Camelia Groza <camelia.groza@....com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa/dpaa_eth.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa/dpaa_eth.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa/dpaa_eth.c
> > index 06cc863..1aac0b6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa/dpaa_eth.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa/dpaa_eth.c
> > @@ -175,8 +175,10 @@
> > #define DPAA_TIME_STAMP_SIZE 8
> > #define DPAA_HASH_RESULTS_SIZE 8
> > #ifdef CONFIG_DPAA_ERRATUM_A050385
> > -#define DPAA_RX_PRIV_DATA_SIZE (DPAA_A050385_ALIGN -
> (DPAA_PARSE_RESULTS_SIZE\
> > - + DPAA_TIME_STAMP_SIZE + DPAA_HASH_RESULTS_SIZE))
> > +#define DPAA_RX_PRIV_DATA_SIZE (fman_has_errata_a050385() ? \
> > + (DPAA_A050385_ALIGN -
> (DPAA_PARSE_RESULTS_SIZE\
> > + + DPAA_TIME_STAMP_SIZE +
> DPAA_HASH_RESULTS_SIZE)) : \
> > + (DPAA_TX_PRIV_DATA_SIZE +
> dpaa_rx_extra_headroom))
>
> This expressions is highly unreadable, please refactor. Maybe separate
> defines for errata and non-errata, and one for the ternary operator?
Will clean it up. Thanks.
> > #else
> > #define DPAA_RX_PRIV_DATA_SIZE (u16)(DPAA_TX_PRIV_DATA_SIZE + \
> > dpaa_rx_extra_headroom)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists