On 03/27/2018 02:59 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Count the numbers of various ATU and VTU violation statistics and
> return them as part of the ethtool -S statistics.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch>
> ---
> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c | 50
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h | 13 ++++++---
> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_atu.c | 12 +++++---
> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_vtu.c | 8 ++++--
> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/serdes.c | 15 ++++++----
> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/serdes.h | 8 +++---
> 6 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> index 9a5d786b4885..186021f98c5d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> @@ -723,6 +723,24 @@ static int mv88e6320_stats_get_strings(struct
> mv88e6xxx_chip *chip,
> STATS_TYPE_BANK0 | STATS_TYPE_BANK1);
> }
>
> +static const uint8_t *mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings[] = {
Why not const char *?
> + "atu_member_violation",
> + "atu_miss_violation",
> + "atu_full_violation",
> + "vtu_member_violation",
> + "vtu_miss_violation",
> +};
> +
> +static void mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_get_strings(uint8_t *data)
> +{
> + int i;
unsigned int i?
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings); i++)
> + strlcpy(data + i * ETH_GSTRING_LEN,
> + mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings[i],
> + ETH_GSTRING_LEN);
> +}
> +
> static void mv88e6xxx_get_strings(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> uint8_t *data)
> {
> @@ -736,9 +754,12 @@ static void mv88e6xxx_get_strings(struct dsa_switch *ds,
> int port,
>
> if (chip->info->ops->serdes_get_strings) {
> data += count * ETH_GSTRING_LEN;
> - chip->info->ops->serdes_get_strings(chip, port, data);
> + count = chip->info->ops->serdes_get_strings(chip, port, data);
> }
>
> + data += count * ETH_GSTRING_LEN;
> + mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_get_strings(data);
> +
> mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock);
> }
>
> @@ -783,10 +804,13 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_get_sset_count(struct dsa_switch
> *ds, int port)
> if (chip->info->ops->serdes_get_sset_count)
> serdes_count = chip->info->ops->serdes_get_sset_count(chip,
> port);
> - if (serdes_count < 0)
> + if (serdes_count < 0) {
> count = serdes_count;
> - else
> - count += serdes_count;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + count += serdes_count;
> + count += ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings);
> +
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock);
>
> @@ -841,6 +865,16 @@ static int mv88e6390_stats_get_stats(struct
> mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> 0);
> }
>
> +static void mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_get_stats(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int
> port,
> + uint64_t *data)
> +{
> + *data++ = chip->ports[port].atu_member_violation;
> + *data++ = chip->ports[port].atu_miss_violation;
> + *data++ = chip->ports[port].atu_full_violation;
> + *data++ = chip->ports[port].vtu_member_violation;
> + *data++ = chip->ports[port].vtu_miss_violation;
This looks fine, but I suppose you could just have an u64 pointer which
is initialized to point to atu_member_violation, and then just do
pointer arithmetics to iterate, this would avoid possibly missing that
function in case new ATU/VTU violations are handled in the future?
--
Florian
