Hi Andy,
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 12:38:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:35 AM Vadym Kochan <vadym.koc...@plvision.eu> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 10:12:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:52 PM Vadym Kochan <vadym.koc...@plvision.eu>
> > > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > + words[3] |= FIELD_PREP(PRESTERA_W3_HW_DEV_NUM, (dsa->hw_dev_num
> > > > >> 5));
> > >
> > > Ditto.
> > >
> > I am not sure 5 needs to be defined as macro as it just moves
> > hw_dev_num's higher bits into the last word.
>
> And why 5? I want 6, for example!
>
> ...
Actually this shifting is conceptually not right and should be mirrored
with PRESTERA_DSA_DEV_NUM genmask from prestera_dsa_parse(), so instead I
did this:
...
u32 dev_num = dsa->hw_dev_num;
...
dev_num = FIELD_GET(PRESTERA_DSA_DEV_NUM, dev_num);
words[3] |= FIELD_PREP(PRESTERA_DSA_W3_DEV_NUM, dev_num);
...
>
> > > > + err = prestera_switch_init(sw);
> > > > + if (err) {
> > > > + kfree(sw);
> > >
> > > > + return err;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > return err;
> > >
> > why not keep 'return 0' as indication of success point ?
>
> Simple longer, but I'm not insisting. Your choice.
>
> ...
>
> > > > + if (b == 0)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + prestera_sdma_rx_desc_set_next(sdma,
> > > > + ring->bufs[b -
> > > > 1].desc,
> > > > + buf->desc_dma);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (b == PRESTERA_SDMA_RX_DESC_PER_Q - 1)
> > > > + prestera_sdma_rx_desc_set_next(sdma,
> > > > buf->desc,
> > > > +
> > > > head->desc_dma);
> > >
> > > I guess knowing what the allowed range of bnum the above can be optimized.
> > >
> > You mean to replace PRESTERA_SDMA_RX_DESC_PER_Q by bnum ?
>
> I don't know what you meant in above. It might be a bug, it might be
> that bnum is redundant and this definition may be used everywhere...
> But I believe there is room for improvement when I see pattern like
>
> for (i < X) {
> ...
> if (i == 0) {
> ...
> } else if (i == X - 1) {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> Either it can be while-loop (or do-while) with better semantics for
> the first and last item to handle or something else.
> Example from another review [1] in case you wonder how changes can be
> made. Just think about it.
>
> [1]: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg60826.html (before)
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg62043.html (after)
>
I came up with the following approach which works:
-------------->8------------------------------------------------
tail = &ring->bufs[bnum - 1];
head = &ring->bufs[0];
next = head;
prev = next;
ring->next_rx = 0;
do {
err = prestera_sdma_buf_init(sdma, next);
if (err)
return err;
err = prestera_sdma_rx_skb_alloc(sdma, next);
if (err)
return err;
prestera_sdma_rx_desc_init(sdma, next->desc, next->buf_dma);
prestera_sdma_rx_desc_set_next(sdma, prev->desc, next->desc_dma);
prev = next;
next++;
} while (prev != tail);
/* make a circular list */
prestera_sdma_rx_desc_set_next(sdma, tail->desc, head->desc_dma);
--------------8<------------------------------------------------
Now it looks more list-oriented cyclic logic.
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
Thanks!
