On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:17:19AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 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 *?
The ethtool call passes i uint8_t *data to receive the copy into. I'm
keeping it consistent.
> > +static void mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_get_strings(uint8_t *data)
> > +{
> > + int i;
>
> unsigned int i?
I could do, but it seems unlikely it will overflow 31 bits.
> > +
> > + 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?
KISS. This works and is obvious.
Andrew
