Francois Romieu <rom...@fr.zoreil.com> writes:
> Mans Rullgard <m...@mansr.com> :
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/aurora/nb8800.c
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/aurora/nb8800.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..11cd389
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/aurora/nb8800.c
> [...]
>> +static int nb8800_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
>> +{
> [...]
>> +
>> + netdev_sent_queue(dev, skb->len);
>> +
>> + smp_mb__before_spinlock();
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->tx_lock, flags);
>
> At some point you may consider performing both Tx and Rx from napi context
> and thus replacing priv->tx_lock with netif_tx_lock.
That lock is to synchronise the DMA start between nb8800_xmit() and the
interrupt handler. When the DMA complete interrupt arrives, the next
chain should be kicked off as quickly as possible, and I don't see why
that would benefit from being done in napi context.
>> +
>> + if (!skb->xmit_more) {
>> + priv->tx_chain->ready = true;
>> + priv->tx_chain = NULL;
>> + nb8800_tx_dma_start(dev);
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->tx_lock, flags);
>> +
>> + priv->tx_next = next;
>
> Are there strong reasons why nb8800_tx_done could not kick between
> spin_unlock_irqrestore and the non-local update of priv->tx_next ?
Good catch. priv->tx_next wasn't accessed elsewhere in an earlier
version, and I forgot to fix that. nb8800_tx_done() makes sure the DMA
has actually finished, so priv->tx_next should be updated before
starting the DMA rather than after. The check against tx_next in
nb8800_tx_done() is only to put some limit on the loop and to avoid
confusion when nb8800_dma_stop() does it's dance. There should be no
need for more synchronisation here than what the already present memory
barriers provide.
> [...]
>> +static irqreturn_t nb8800_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> +{
>> + struct net_device *dev = dev_id;
>> + struct nb8800_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
>> + u32 val;
>> +
>> + /* tx interrupt */
>> + val = nb8800_readl(priv, NB8800_TXC_SR);
>> + if (val) {
> [...]
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* rx interrupt */
>> + val = nb8800_readl(priv, NB8800_RXC_SR);
>> + if (val) {
> [...]
>> + }
>> +
>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>
> Returning IRQ_HANDLED is fine if one of those hold:
> 1. you're sure that at least one of the "if" branch is used
> 2. you'll be able to quickly figure out what's happening whenever 1. stops
> being true.
You're right, better to check that the device really did have something
to say.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@mansr.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
