[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240619.124422.478553760916754787.fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:44:22 +0900 (JST)
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
To: kuba@...nel.org
Cc: fujita.tomonori@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch,
horms@...nel.org, jiri@...nulli.us, pabeni@...hat.com,
linux@...linux.org.uk, hfdevel@....net, naveenm@...vell.com,
jdamato@...tly.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 4/7] net: tn40xx: add basic Tx handling
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:50:00 -0700
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:16:05 +0900 FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>> + * As our benchmarks shows, it adds 1.5 Gbit/sec to NIS's throughput.
>
> nit: NIC's
Oops, fixed.
>> +static int tn40_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *ndev)
>
> return type should be netdev_tx_t ?
Indeed, fixed.
>> + netif_trans_update(ndev);
>
> I don't think you need to call this, core sets the trans time
> all by itself
Got it, removed.
>> +static void tn40_link_changed(struct tn40_priv *priv)
>> +{
>> + u32 link = tn40_read_reg(priv,
>> + TN40_REG_MAC_LNK_STAT) & TN40_MAC_LINK_STAT;
>> +
>> + netdev_dbg(priv->ndev, "link changed %u\n", link);
>
> shouldn't this call netif_carrier_on / off?
According to phylink doc, a driver shouldn't call them?
>> + mdelay(100);
>
> there are 3 more mdelays in the driver, all seem like candidates for
> being msleep
Removed all the mdelay calls.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists